silvestre reyes from texas. we will look at the fiscal health of the states with brian sigritz, with the national association of state budget officers. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: the supreme court split some arizona immigration law, striking down three major parts but upholding what is called the "show me your papers" provision. welcome to "washington journal." we will talk this morning with reporters who cover the supreme court and arizona border and members of congress joined us to share their reaction very we would like to hear what you think this morning about the supreme court's decision. here are the numbers to call --

"the los angeles times" says -- "the orange county register" also with a top headline above the fold -- "the chicago tribune" also tells its viewers what is going on. one of the border states wrestling with its own issues, texas has "the houston chronicle." "the pittsburgh post-gazette" looks at the case.

"the atlanta journal constitution" -- georgia is one of its states that has its own controversial immigration law on its books that may be affected by what happened in the supreme court yesterday. "the wall street journal" headline -- the report this per. joining us to talk about the piece is jess bravin, here in the studio, supreme court correspondent for "the wall street journal." looking at the headlines, there is variety and different takes on how the story is being perceived, whether or not the heart of the law was retained or

whether it was struck down. guest: not only that, but because of the number of reporters covering the supreme court has declined, several of the stories are excellent the same story written by the same person and road different headlines on it. editors have tried to summarize it in terms of the headline -- either a split decision because the court upheld one of the session -- sections, or bey said really it is a rebuke to arizona because the substance of the law, really the harshest parts that go beyond simply checking immigration status more rolled into conflict with federal law. host: "usa today" has a nice graphic that shows the three parts thrown out and one part of bell. the "show me your papers" is what republican jan brewer, the

governor, said was the heart of the law. guest: the core provisions at issue -- the part of the court found a permissible establishes a state policy of having local and state police officers catch -- check the immigration status of people they stopped for other reasons, whom they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally. and the supreme court upheld that provision because it found that congress intended for there to be some consultation between local officials and federal immigration authorities. under federal immigration law, the immigration and customs enforcement agency is required to provide immigration status verification to local authorities who requested. the supreme court reasoned that if the federal government is already required to provide that information when local officers asked for it on their own, the

state did not face a bar to establishing a policy requiring officers to ask for it in certain circumstances. host: let's listen to governor jan brewer speaking. [video clip] >> we know the eyes of the world will be on us and the critics will be watching and waiting for another opportunity to continue their legal assault against our state. but i have faith in our law enforcement, our brave men and women in uniform have been trained so they can enforce this law efficiently, effectively, and in harmony with the constitution. civil rights will be protected. racial profiling will not be tolerated. senate bill 1070 is equally committed to upholding the rule of law while ensuring that the constitutional rights of all in arizona are protected, including prohibiting law enforcement officers from solely considering

race, color, or national origin in implementing the provision. in fact, under my direction, senate bill 1070 was amended to strengthen and to emphasize the importance that civil rights are protected. host: governor jan brewer from arizona reacting to the supreme court decision. it is the state and president obama put out. "i am pleased the supreme court struck down key provisions of arizona's immigration law" -- jess bravin, both sides are claiming some degree of victory. guest: that is true, because this provision establishing the statewide policy of requiring immigration checks when officers reasonably suspect someone is in the country unlawfully bedstand. however, the court did not give

it an unqualified embrace. during oral arguments in april and also this opinion, justices said they were concerned about possibly people may be detained solely to check the immigration status. the court makes clear in the opinion that local offices cannot do that. if someone was going to be in custody anyway, sure, local officers can check immigration status but they were open to the possibility it could be unlawful for officials to hold someone solely to verify immigration status. host: here is the oakwood would usa today" headline very mixed message. -- here is the "usa today" headline, "a mixed message."

what was allowed to stand was the checking immigration status. let us hear what the callers have to say. glenda is from los angeles. caller: good morning. i would like to know why we are calling this immigration. it is an invasion. we spend in california $10 billion a year on illegals. incarceration, education, welfare, health care -- they get everything. they also, it the biggest crimes in california. recently, a high school star student was shot down by an illegal because he was carrying

a red backpacke. his mother was serving overseas. she got the news that her son had been killed. i think any red blooded american who has lost a family member to protect our country and then we have these yahoos letting them in, giving them special treatment -- and this is against our laws. host: jess bravin, did the justices individually talk about the issue of immigration nationally and how they may be wrestling with this? guest: the court acknowledged, the majority opinion written by justice kennedy, that the strains of illegal immigration was placing on arizona, noting statistic showing in illegal immigrants cause a disproportionate number of crimes in the phoenix area and

similar strains that their presence can place. he also had poetic words about america that a heritage as a nation of immigrants, and so forth. those issues are kind of beside the point because the supreme court is not in the business of making policy for the united states government. that is the job for the congress and the president. the supreme court that a job is interpreting the laws congress and the president adopted. when the president made his statement responding to the ruling yesterday, he did emphasize what his policies had been. those have been to emphasize deportations of zero violent criminals and other people who they make a top priority. so, the president says his policy has been to focus on people who she indicated was a threat to public safety and shifting resources to them as

opposed to people who they think are not a threat, like the children and so forth. so, the court observed that hundreds of thousands of people are deported by the united states every year. host: here is what supreme court justice kennedy had to say and we will take a look at this. jess bravin, did you get a sense of the justices on multiple sides of the issue -- because there was a majority opinion 5-3 in one aspect and then the court split 6-2 on another aspect -- did you get the sense they were seeing their place in history in this debate? guest: i think the supreme court justices are very aware of their place of history in every debate, because they have the

last word certainly on constitutional interpretation under our system. so, they are aware of that. it was a notable that justice scalia, who dissented from this opinion, went out of his way to invoke president obama's recent decision regarding the younger in illegal immigrants, deciding not to deport them, and so he -- host: bringing in modern-day politics in an issue separate from this case. guest: as an example of the federal government failing to it in force, in his view, immigration law, and therefore creating an opening for the state. justice kennedy that a majority opinions of the other position, saying federal immigration law grants a great deal of discretion because of the many factors involved, including diplomatic relations. i think as the viewers consider this opinion, it is important to understand what it is the court, in fact, all who purses updated

have to say about this. all of them agreed that immigration under the constitution is a matter for the federal government to decide. the only question legally in this case is whether federal immigration statute create room for states to pile on their own penalties and make their own enforcement decisions or they whether those decisions interfere with federal priorities. the majority found that the three struck provisions interfere with the federal priorities and therefore cannot stand. there is no debate on the federal government's primacy in the immigration area or the fact that states when they do pass their own immigration-related measures, complement -- complement rather than a fear with policy. host: another caller from akron, ohio. caller: i-5 decree but that a guy who works for "the wall street journal" would comment on the sprinkler -- i find it creepy that a guy who works for "the wall street journal" would

comment on the supreme court. host: why is that? caller: well, i mean, he said that the supreme court is not supposed to make policy but, you know, in their decision over campaign financing, they took the most sacred thing that we have here which is our election process and they turned it into a bidding war. but getting back to immigration, the republican party going back to ronald reagan used illegal immigration as a way to get voters. plus, if you look at the state of texas, you had 12 years of the bush family running of country, that is where most of your problems come from. and they bring the people in there so they can work for eight bucks an hour with no benefits, for though voting days -- as far

as arizona, that was one of the fastest-growing states in the whole country based on of using the labor. they invited them over there to work and build their roads, and now it has ended, they want to deport them. you have rolled the state's -- rogue states in the country who have abused for their own power and their own self-interest. host: let us look and what you brought up about campaign finance law. this is from "the washington post." we heard of the decisions announced. tell us about this one. guest: first, rick, sorry to creep you out so early in the morning.

the immigration law that they said the arizona measure conflicted with was designed in part by president reagan in the 1980's. the court reversed the decision by the montana supreme court, a 100-year law -- in 1912, it was illegal for corporations to contribute to political campaigns and the montana supreme court said the law could stand despite the 2010 citizens united ruling that found that corporations and labor unions have a first amendment right to make political expenditures to pay for campaign ads. the montana supreme court said montana's unique history, and because of all kinds of corruption that took place in the wild west days when outside mining interests at a big influence over the state house, they said the montana law could stand despite citizen denied because of some language in the citizens united decision --

saying in our state there was evidence of corruption. supreme court saying, new cannot be serious, no significant distinction between your montana law in 1912 and the kind of measures we found unconstitutional in citizens united. the four liberal members of the court dissented, saying they continue to disagree with the citizens united but even if they could accept it, montana could produce its own record showing why their law might stand and they felt the supreme court should heard -- should have heard the case instead of summarily rejecting it. host: birmingham, alabama. hi. caller: good morning. my thing is i was listening to some of the constitutional scholars, which i would never proclaimed to be, and according

to some of them, they can go back and revisit the law that they upheld because if they start having a lot of lawsuits and racial profiling, they can go back and revisit that and strike that down. so, i did not think it was a win for jan brewer, even though she went on tv yesterday. i really think president obama and the government one across the board. they -- and they go back and revisit and people file lawsuits that they are being racially profile, they can throw of out because we've laws in the united states does you cannot racially profile the person. i think president obama one across the board. also, we need to get off of this demonizing people. because if you have never been discriminated against you don't

know what it feels. i did not think african- americans have to keep making a point that the immigrants are taking over our jobs. they are not taking our jobs. we don't need to be separating people like that. i can't go there because i am african-american and i also a woman even though i am sounding voiced this morning because of my allergies. host: where are these obama jobs been promised to illegals? "the wall street journal" showing us how they weighed in. justice elena kagan was recused. why? guest: she was the u.s. solicitor general and early stages of the litigation so we assume that because she was involved early on she did not take part when it came to the

supreme court. host: what was no word on how the justices lined up on certain issues? guest: couple of things. one is that the accord was certainly unanimous on the measure that olivia just mentioned, regarding immigration status check. the court voted 6-2 regarding arizona's efforts to make it a state crime to fail to carry ellie registration papers -- justice alito voted in the majority, 5-3 on the other parts of the law challenge. both justice kennedy and chief justice john roberts were in the majority ruling for the most part with the obama administration. that is notable because it and about a year-and-a-half ago they were on the other side of another arizona immigration case that was before the supreme court. arizona had passed a bill written by the same lawmaker who wrote 1070 that essentially put out of business employers who

repeatedly hired illegal immigrants by suspended their business licenses and revoking the corporate charters. chief justice roberts wrote an opinion upholding that the law against a challenge brought by the obama administration and the u.s. chamber of commerce, two institutions balked not often agree, arguing that it interfered with federal law. the supreme court rejected the argument and said congress had permitted states to withdraw corporate charters and licenses and essentially put out of business companies that hire illegal aliens. we saw that in this part of immigration law, the chief justice and justice kennedy saw things differently and we could explain knott's said -- explain that through statute -- statutory limitation. not trying to set policy but trying to read the statutes congress has adopted and find out what they mean. they are reaching different conclusions not based, they say, on what is the best policy but trying to figure out what

congress intended. host: "it is obvious justice alito sees no limits to states' rights." twitter.n on you can share your opinions in your tweet. let's go to a reporter who covers the border. michel marizco is senior field correspondent for kjzz radio, radio fronteras desk. what was a light yesterday? who were you talking to and what were you hearing? guest: i was talking with people who live on the border. some of the questions are, ok, the u.s. district judge who had initially blocked 1070, yesterday's decision was not unexpected but then the question becomes, well, okay, how are you going to address some of the

peripheral issues surrounding the legal immigration? for example, the organized crime aspect, the assaults that take place along the border that mostly go unreported but always in the shadows. i also spoke with some of the border law enforcement officials, talking county sheriff's, and, you know, some declared victory because the most iconic part of 1070, 2b, which would allow officers to question the immigration status, was retained by the court. declared victory there. i also spoke to a county sheriff who said he was disappointed with -- that the one aspect of 1070 would be preserved. host: do you see how this will play out as officers pull people over, is there a sense of what it means on a practical level?

guest: no. that is the short and simple answer to this. on the same day that the court's ruling came in, homeland security announced they were going to be rescinding the remaining program of 287 g, which allowed for police officers in the field to cross check people through their immigration status with the department of homeland security. they have now terminated that agreement with the remaining -- at the end of the day, what it is looking like -- and this is all being played out -- is, yes, one provision of 1070 remains, but what anybody is going to be able to do with it is completely up in the air right now. nobody knows. host: michel marizco, kjzz radio

fronteras, a consortium of radio stations that cover the board. the you know the political implications? we have seen activists are rallying and reacting to the news outside of your state capital in phoenix yesterday. do you know who this might play out for politically? guest: i was actually somewhat surprised about how tepid some of the response was by protesters on either side. and the thing of course, the immigration debate. and i think this applies nationally as well. those fault lines long ago have been drawn. peopleho supported more restriction-tight immigration law and supported 1070, they certainly have not changed their minds. people who were opposed to 1070, they are certainly not going to change their minds on this. i think at least here in

reactions gole's back to much of the same flow as we have seen in the past, and that this to say they have already made up their minds on how they feel on this issue. i do not see any giant surprises or switches even now that we are talking about an election year. host: finally, tell us what you are going to be watching in the next couple of weeks to see what -- howard plays out. of insight on what we should be watching. guest: the police, they know they have a lot of confusion, a lot of mystery about exactly what is going to happen with their enforcement of that one simple provision of 1070 that is so big, so meaningful. but at the end of the day, it is very possible that 1070 may have just had its teeth completely removed. so, i will be watching the police to see how they train for

this, how they prepare for this, particularly in light of the federal government's decision to pull 287 g out of the game. host: michel marizco, kjzz radio fronteras reporting from the border in tucson, arizona. up at 4:00 a.m. in the morning, really appreciate it. brooklyn, new york. peter is an independent caller. what do you think? caller: basically i have three short questions for the person on your panel. the first one is, has anyone ever kept track of illegal alien offenders? that leads into, well the obama director -- directive at a cost to american lives? 10 states withhold federal taxes from the government because the

government is not providing services? guest: well, all right -- the questions were, and does anyone contract of offenses by illegal aliens? apparently so, because the supreme court cited some statistics indicating day, a disproportionate number of crimes in the maricopa county, arizona, so apparently the statistics are compiled. secondly, will the obama directive cost american lives? hard to even answer whether it would cost us save lives. it is not directed at lifesaving techniques, but involved in discretionary decisions regarding immigration policies. the question does not really have anything to do with the policy. can states withhold taxes paid to the federal government because they do not believe they are receiving services from the federal government? states do not pay taxes to the

federal government. in fact, the federal government subsidizes the states. almost every state receives money from the federal government for various programs, and sometimes the federal government can withhold payments to the states and the states do not comply with federal policies. but that is the way the money flows, for washington to the states, and not the other way around. host: rich, republican caller. from ohio. caller: one of the question government get the money? do they get it from the states and then just send it back? that is one of the things that is hidden -- a quarter trillion or eight trillion dollars? we load up our school systems with illegals and property-tax as goes up, and then somebody loses the house because they cannot pay their property taxes. the other thing, if somebody has say -- in the united states

and they cannot track them back where they came from, they will not pay the bill and they could just walk away. still malones, default -- student loan defaults, illegals can just walk away. i and curious if they sign up for the draft -- i am curious if they sign up for the draft, illegals. guest: the questions i've got -- where does the federal government get the money form -- for what it does? it collects taxes and various duties, terrace. and what kind of accountability? citizens of the united states get to elect members of congress and the president who makes these decisions. so, there is that level of accountability. although the elected officials presumably are held to account each in november election. the question about hospital bills is interesting because

that presages but next exciting decision coming, we think, thursday, which deals with the affordable care act. an effort by the government to expand health coverage. but it has been challenged for various constitutional grounds, including that it exceeds the federal government that a power to enact. so i think for the hospital bill question, you should come back to the show on friday. host: edward tweets in -- jess bravin, could you read tea leaves about the health-care decision based on what you heard yesterday from the court? there was speculation about whether it sheds insight. guest: edward's, is interesting because a lot of people does think the court operates that way. i am not in the private meetings, so i cannot say for sure. certainly not in the brains of the justices. they say that is not what they are doing. not elected officials and not accountable to voters.

they do not, they say, trade votes on on related issues or try to do things to make things look good for the public or when public support. that is what they say. they say they look at each case individually and each has different legal issues. so, the court would say they are disappointed people think what they do is political when they believe what they are doing is legal. the question is, are there any insight into the health-care decision? well, of course, speculation is all that can do waiting to hear what they really have done. we can say that the chief justice and justice anthony kennedy joining with the liberal wing of the court to affirm federal primacy over immigration law against a states' rights challenge. not only that, but the lawyers representing the two sides in the average on a case, the solicitor general of the united states representing the united states and the obama

administration and paul comment formally from the bush administration representing arizona, those are the same two lawyers who argued the healthcare ks and paul clement is seen as one of the great litigators' of his day but was not able to win a majority and arizona case. was this a premonition for the health care case? i would say, having spoken to thousands of experts, the consensus is, time will tell. host: you can go to c-span.org, where you can read the that -- the entire decision related to the case. let's look at our facebook page and see what the viewers and listeners are right canyon. -- riding in paris -- writing in.

jess bravin is the supreme court correspondent for "the wall street journal" who is here to shed insight on what the supreme court decided yesterday. lizzy from california, democrats' line. caller: three quick points and i wanted to hear his input. i am actually from the midwest and lived in california for 10 years and i have two children. my son just graduated from high school, a class of 692 children, over one-third of the award

illegals, 269, i think they counted. i think the problem with the federal government imposing on the stage is when you are from the midwest or somebody -- somewhere in another part of the country, you cannot understand what it is like here in california and arizona. amazing the difference, just the livings in tuition. the illegals are flooding our system, flooding our schools. and when we talk about them taking jobs and causing that problem, i think it is hard for them to understand because growing in it -- up in the 1980's, we think of the illegal workers as migrant workers doing jobs americans likely not want to do. but that is not true anymore. here in california, in the grocery stores, offices with the doctors, everywhere that you think. and a lot of those illegals are using fake ids, which is a hard way to track them. lastly, i just wanted to say my

children are half hispanic, they are citizens, their dad is a citizen and a big it racially profile, especially in california. but i think it is hard where the politicians and the news do not want to be pegged as racist. this is not racism. this is a fact of being an american. it is not like the african americans in the 1950's. we are talking about actual citizens of america -- were talking about actual citizens being treated unfairly. these are not citizens, they are illegal and they live off of our system and work and go to school year and are overcrowding our population and i think it is important for people to understand that. that is why when the federal government is imposing the immigration stipulation, it is really hard because what is good for the midwest is not going to work here in california. host: a different perspective --

guest: two members of the accord are from california and both of them were in the majority striking down both provisions of that evers and a law. justice kennedy and justice breyer. the two members from new york, justice sotomayor and justice ginsburg o-- others from the tr- city area, justice scalia and justice alito voting for the most part against the majority. it is hard to see any regional breakdowns on the court regarding their view on immigration law. host: another story and "the wall street journal" -- guest: that is an opinion by justice kagan, based on a

strange opinions regarding the eighth amendment,: unusual punishment regarding youth offenders. this is as juvenile offenders, people who are under 18 when they commit a crime, cannot be automatically sentenced to life without parole. basically you've got a 14-year old treated as an adult because of the severity of the accusation, homicide, and is convicted and the homicide statute requires a sentence of life without parole. the supreme court said that when the defendant is under 18 when the crime is committed, the courts -- the law cannot require life without parole. the judge has to have an individualized hearing and determine whether or not life without parole is appropriate for that particular offender. it continues the string of opinion by street people who are juveniles when they commit crime as being, to a degree, less culpable than adult offenders.

host: a look at some of the stories in the news. "the new york times" -- the senator from utah faces a primary battle today. where the tea party top a three- term republican senator in a 2010 election crew -- this goes on to say he is running an aggressive and well- financed campaign. congressman charlie rangel 6 vindication in new your primary. a headline in "the washington

post" campaign 2012 section. a strong democratic challenger has him on the defense. we will see how that plays out as well. other stories in the news. new rules set to curb leaks and kers.re league "afghan attacks jumping after a long drop," from "the wall street journal." we are mostly talking this morning about the supreme court decision yesterday regarding

immigration in arizona. let's go to a tennessee caller. ozzie on the independent line. caller: two important statements. i have to paraphrase because i do not have my competition with me. when the government gets to a point where it is trampling on our rights and out of control basically, it is up to the people to dissolve the government, abolishing it, which is what we should have them maybe about eight years ago. however, we did not come and the people of very ignorant because -- they did not want the constitution. they are trying to go all around the constitution. number two -- the only way that this country could ever be brought down is not from an enemy from without but within and what they are doing. they are open for trading the government over the last 35 or 40 years, slowly making a liberal supreme court that is not the elected, they are picked -- duh -- so basically they are to the point where they can do whatever they want to do to the

country and destroy it and that it's exactly what their goal is to do, destroy this nation. host:ozzie finds the supreme court liberal. last year when the cord wrapped up its term, they talked about conservative court, from a conservative angle. are you looking to some of this year's term or do we have to see how thursday turns out? guest: firstly, i want to tell ozzie that the constitution does not have a provision of the rise and destruction of the united states government. it does provide amendments through a very complicated and difficult process. but there is no provision in it authorizing any kind of uprising or insurrection or rebellion against the united states. in terms of the court's ideological makeup -- each decision, of course, has to be looked at individually and the justices have to, unlike other public officials, they have to explain how they reached their conclusion in his written

opinions. here is the arizona opinion. so, we can't paint always with a broad brush. but most observers to the court would say that this is actually the most conservative court we have had in many generations. that is really the result of decades of republican presidents nominating justices to the supreme court. so, like it or does like the or agree with everything or disagree, it would be difficult to say that this court is a liberal court compared to the way the court looked at issues back in the 1950's and 1960's. host: donald tweets in and asked -- guest: justice scalia cited that to say that the federal government's rationale, that the federal government is choosing to not enforce immigration law as strictly as it could in that

-- and that it was not because of lack of resources, because it will take resources in order to process all of the young people who are affected by the order. so, he was essentially saying that that is an example of the federal government walking away from its enforcement responsibilities and therefore creating a vacuum that the state should be free to fill in. but why he chose to bring up a very current political issue, i don't know. host: republican caller from gainesville, florida. caller: just one question for you -- a few minutes ago you said by striking down three provisions that the court struck down, that basically they were in affecting any state law that says that list has to complement federal law. if that is the case, what does it say about states -- or big cities or states that established sanctuary policies, sanctuary cities?

guest: that is a very good question. federal law actually tried to discourage these so-called sanctuary cities. what he means that city's that established policy saying they will not walk right with immigration officials and they are not going to ask immigration status. so, the federal government has saw to discourage that. they want local officials to help them and not interfere with them. but washington cannot commandeer local police forces. in other words, they cannot force a city like los angeles or new york to begin enforcing federal law because both local officers cannot report directly to washington. what they can do, however, is stop a state or city from enforcing the -- enforcing a law that interferes with federal agencies. let's say city passes an ordinance that says our police officers will protect illegal

immigrants from federal officers, that illegal immigrants can come to the police station and we will concealed them from the u.s. authorities, that kind of organs would probably be in trouble before the supreme court. however, the decision simply to not seek to find out in the crisis that is the people they've run in contact with would probably not be a problem. host: bill tweets in -- let's take a look at how mitt romney, candidate for president, responded to the supreme court said yesterday. he said today's decisions underscore is the need for a president will lead on this critical issue --

pittsburgh, pennsylvania. barbara, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i have a few comments to me. first of all, i can't understand after all of these years, congress does not come together with an agreement where they can allow the immigrants to be in the united states. they need to set a set date that all who are here already go and file to be citizens of the united states. after that, whoever comes after that would be subject to leave this country. just like you have in the prisons, you have fences up there with the prisoners cannot get out -- i can't understand why they can't take and of the borders with the fences and the guards that need to be there because also you have to look at not only are you looking at immigrants who are coming over who want jobs, but we also of terrorists who can come across our borders. so you have to check who is coming across the borders.

i did not -- the immigrants, just like anybody else who want a good living. when they were talking about the slavery of the blacks -- we did not come here on our own initiative but we are here. they came because they want to have freedom from wherever they are coming from. so, there should be a solution. i don't understand why the democrats and republicans do not get together and do their jobs. all this political arguments and -- like the health care plan -- i don't understand why they just don't come together. and a tea party is not really republican. they have taken over -- over the republican party. they are taking over the republican party. and the republican party is bending to their wishes and they are taking us backwards toward slavery times. host: we will hear from a couple of members of congress coming up

on "washington journal." let us look back jess bravin's story in "the wall street journal" this morning. could an actual case that deals with this make it to the supreme court? guest: there was a case filed in arizona by the aclu challenging the entire statute or most of the statute, including this provision during but i think the supreme court opinion has a prescriptive quality as well. arizona officials -- the judges, city attorneys and so forth who have to enforce their state law and remaining provision, they can read the supreme court opinion and could see the direction the court gave them regarding interpretation. p so, the arizona law says that the local officer has to make a

reasonable effort to check immigration status but it does not define what reasonable is. the supreme court indicated what reasonable is, and that means not holding someone solely to check the immigration status. the court gave examples. if a cop stops someone for jaywalking and has reason to check immigration status, they cannot hold them for another couple of hours if they would not hold them anyway for jaywalking. no one would be held in jail for jaywalking. so in that instance, it would not be reasonable the court suggested to hold someone. but for drunk driving -- of are they would set the night in the drunk tank any way while they are in custody, and it would be reasonable for local police to check the immigration status. the court gave guide -- guidelines to arizona and arizona follows them as that lays out, what are the statute would stay in place. but of arizona and turpin said in a way the court feels is accepted, and then it could run into trouble.

host: oklahoma. bill, republican caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. could you explain to the american people the immigration policy and the relationship with police officers -- versus -- i was a police officer in california and i made lots of stock swap, pedestrians and traffic, and in the course of the interview you ask for a driver's license. they give you a legal one, illinois legal one, false identification. the first thing you have to determine is who they are before it can ask -- the asking why they stopped them. in the past, once we determined they were an illegal immigrant, in the course of time to figure out who they were, we were not able to act on that. all we were able to do was give them a ticket or big release them. we did not hold them for ins. if we arrested them and took them to jail, and the course of

processing through the system, ice would pick the people up after we were done with them. nothing has really changed, from what i can see. can you explain that to people so people understand the difference between what it was before and what is now? to me it does not sound like it really changed. guest: actually, in terms of what actually happens, this came up in the supreme court argument. the justices asked the lawyer representing the state of arizona -- ok, so, your officer checked the prisoner's immigration status and the government says, yes, he is here illegally. then what? it turns out that it is just up to the federal government. they tell the local department that, yes, this is the guy we want. we think he is involved in a violent crime. somebody of the federal government once, then the local authorities can hold him until the federal government picks him up. but if the government says, it

yes, we do not have a record of him being in the country lawfully, we did not have a vis a, but we don't want him -- he is not one of our priority people -- then there is no independent authority for the hours on a police to hold them. the arizona's lawyers says if the government says we do not want them, arizona will let them go. i think in thinking about what the impact of the provision will be in the real world, obviously time will tell. but you can say whatever things are happening. according to the supreme court opinion, nobody is going to be detained longer than they would be otherwise solely because of an immigration check. on the other hand, arizona does get to make a statement it does not considered illegal immigrants welcome in their state. the basically turn every police officer in to kind of an ambassador of on welcome -- by making them check the immigration status and indicating that they are watching and looking and they're very concerned about this. so, to the extent arizona wants

to send a message to illegal immigrants that thedo not belong there, they get to send that message through the statewide policy, but they don't get to actually punish such people beyond what the federal government wants them to. host: boringfilecleark tweets -- and here are comments from facebook coming in --

louisiana. janice, democrats' line. caller: good morning, libby. having to do with these aliens. i think we have to hold the employee is responsible who hire illegals and there should be an avenue to make sure these people, the legal workers, have employment hand -- and have enough agents to check on them to make sure they are not overstaying, nor being taken advantage of or abused in some way. now, arizona has a unique problem. and we just have to work at out with the federal government, keeping in mind hopefully that they are americans first before arizonians. no. 3 -- airline personnel must carry papers and flight crews like -- have to go through security like everyone else, ed, so their luggage x-ray

what is the difference? maybe all americans should wear id possibility think of that? host: a viewer writes -- miss tweeter is talking about what our caller was talking about, and we're responsible. guest: federal law in 1986, what president reagan signed, it included partial amnesty and impose the employer sanctions. that is why most people in the united states to have a job, probably have to fill out a form and provide identification like a passport or birth certificate to demonstrate they are entitled to work in the united states. that provision already exists and there are employer penalties under federal law for employers who who do hired illegal aliens by failing to undertake the necessary checks.

also, the supreme court allowed to stand, as a said earlier, an arizona law that severely punishes employers for hiring illegal immigrants. so, those employers engines are in place. i do not have the figures of how many are prosecuted but those are already a strong part of immigration law. part of the arizona law struck down yesterday by the supreme court saw to make it a crime for immigrants to seek work. in other words, it intended to address what arizona considered to be a failure of the federal law, punishing the employees' side as well as the employer's side. the supreme court said that congress decided in its wisdom to only pundit -- punish employers and that employees from seeking work unless they use of fraudulent documents or commits another crime in the course of seeking work. host: magdy, independent caller. oakland, california. caller: thank you for having me on. a couple of points -- it really

baffles me as to why our representatives and the media keep referring to our immigration policy as broken. it is not broken. it just needs to be enforced. i don't understand where the broken image comes from. and the second point is the impact of illegal immigration on our schools and our health care system. guest: i am not calling it either robust or broken. the supreme court decision points to federal responsibility enforcing immigration law, but it also says that part of that immigration law is discretion, because there are a lot of issues that come up in individual deportation cases, and congress and signed the executive some discretion over when to the port and when to

permit someone to remain. host: let's look at the "leader times" map that breaks down the states that enact similar law -- "the new york times" nap. 24 other states that have introduced but not yet enacted bills with provisions similar to at least one of the four arizona provisions, according to the american civil liberties union. jess bravin, do we know what the implications are? guest: the supreme court has laid down the guidelines of what they can and cannot do. federal immigration law does the -- cooperation between federal and state employees. if a local officer once to check somebody's immigration status, there is a 24-hour federal center to answer the questions, a federal data base. so, there is an expectation, as it is with almost every law, but different levels of government will call are free with each other in enforcing the law. if other states want to pass

similar status check provisions as arizona or similar employer sanctions the way arizona passed, the supreme court has indicated those would be all right because they are foreseen by the federal immigration law. the question is, what happens if the state wants to emphasize one aspect of immigration policy more than others? arizona, for instance, putting all its efforts on the enforcement side and not looking at the other values that the federal law that tends to balance, that is something they cannot do. so, there is a role for states enforcing immigration law but it has to be host: jess bravin covers the u.s. supreme court and national and international issues. thank you for talking with us this morning.

guest: sure. host: taking the time in a busy week. we appreciate it. we will continue the conversation about the supreme court decision with representative paul garcia -- paul gosar, followed with representative silvestre reyes from texas. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> july 7 and eighth, booktv and "american history tv" explore

the jefferson city on the campus of lincoln university. >> this is probably our most famous book. it is what we like to show to visitors when they come into the archives. this is a book about harriet tubman. the special thing about this is the book was written in 1866 and the special thing is that. tubman -- about this book is that. tubman made this mark --. tubman made her mark on this book. obviously, she could not read or write, so she left her mark, the site of the cross. >> watch for booktv and "american history" td on july 7

and 8 -- t d on july and eight. >> the republicans would looking field, there would be a nominee and the republicans would then rally around the nominee, and the nature of the race would reveal itself, which would be it would be close, and i would tell you the media would eat that up. i will tell you what the next phase is going to be. it is going to be the media becoming more alert to the fact that governor mitt romney has been completely evasive about his positions, has been all over the lot many of them and has tried to play hide and seek wi the american people. the news media will be challenged to challenge him, to be more forthcoming. the story will be that for a

while. that is the nature of this business. >> looked behind the presidential coverage on line with c-span's road to the white house and the c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative paul gosar, what is your reaction to the decision? guest: overall, i think it is very good. the bulk of what arizona wanted, we got. it will take some caution in how we apply that. in striking down the other three is what the court -- is the court allowed congress to work with the state, and allow them to be incorporated. we will be working on that. host: do you have a sense on how this will play out with boots on

the ground, for law enforcement, for citizens on -- in your state concerned about being pulled over? guest: there are decisions with a retaliatory act. host: tell us more about that. guest: 287 g works with states and law enforcement with regards to immigration policy. yesterday, coleman security revoked contract in arizona saying they were not going to continue -- homeland security sweep out contract in arizona saying you're not pointing continue with them, and i think that is a mistake. host: represent a paul gosar serves on the national -- natural resources committee, also oversight and government reform. he would like to join the

conversation, you can call us. host: this headline from "the wall street journal" -- the arizona ruling helps obama court hispanics. the you have on what -- a perspective on what this could mean? guest: there is some pandering for the hispanic vote, but we are a nation of laws. i think there is a groundswell of people that are having problems picking winners and losers and not giving the law fairly across. it goes back to a comment made from one of my colleagues about justice. justices blindfolded. she does not see who she gives justice to.

she waved the scale back and forth and she carries a sort of that is with. -- that is swift. that is what america wants to see, a return to a set of laws that are common sense. at what thisook supreme court decision means. that upheld the status check. three provisions of the law were struck down. one is a requirement to carr registrationy papers, and another is a criminal offense for holding or keeping a job, and also struck down the arrests of suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. what about that concerns you the most? guest: the application that allows arizona to ask for immigration status is a win. how we apply that will be different. if you go further in the ruling, i think the court allows

congress to -- it is almost an invitation that if we choose to imply that states could have a bigger role, we could. we are going to work on that. host: dan, a republican, in frederick, maryland. caller: as i understood it, the supreme court in their infinite wisdom, once again, basically said states cannot take the job of the federal government but they left in what happens if the federal government fails or refuses to do their job. a prime example is what happens -- is happening in florida, finding out who is legally allowed to vote. right now, they're refusing to give up some of the information, so our election to be based on a lot of non- citizens voting, and that could

cost the election. also, who is standing up for the people waiting in line to get in? everyone talks about the people brought over here illegally, but nobody talks about the people waiting in line to get in. guest: i have been one of those. i have always said we should be rewarding good behavior. why does it take so many attorneys and so many dollars to come into this country the right way? if that is the part that is broken. we should be looking at what has facilitated that choking off of people coming in the proper way. that is part of the solution we brought forward and it is well- articulated from arizona. host: a democratic caller from port richey, florida. andy. caller: i live in florida and i see a lot of these illegal immigrants working for these

companies, and everybody knew they were here. let's stop the nonsense. arizona has a bad problem. they have to handle the problem the way they want to do it. there have been murders there and everything. if the people down here already, if they work very hard. they are breaking their back and their boss is exploiting them. that is what the problem is. they are here already. if their children are here. he cannot take them and throw them out. everybody knew -- you cannot take them and throw them out. everybody knew they were here. they work very hard, and they are starting to death. i believe in illegal immigration also, but like i said, you knew they were here. everybody knew they were here. now there are no jobs here, they said the jobs overseas, they want to throw them out. host: andy said as he has a lot

of sympathy. what do you have to say? guest: my grandparents came to this country as immigrants. they came for the american dream, but they came here the right way. there is a part of this aspect in regards to employers taking advantage and that is why in arizona we have sanctions where we can take a business license away for exploiting or utilize in folks. just because you work hard it does not give you the right to define the rule of law. we have administration after administration that have not built a trust with the american people with regards to their rule of law. we have to uphold that because we do justice to nobody, not those coming in, not those that are here legally. we have to have a policy that

restores our borders and our constitution, and once we have said we can restore the trust we head with our citizens. trust is a series of promises kept. why should arizona trust the federal government when it has not kept promises to us? host: what was your opinion on the president put the change in policy regarding kids coming -- the president's change in policy regarding kids coming into the country illegally? guest: i think is a lack of leadership. we are begging for a leader that will bring sides together and start rolling up his sleeves. this country needs it and demands it. they are begging for it. i thought it was an over-reach, a political misstep, pandering to the hispanic vote. i do not know that that is going to pan out.

host: jimmy tweets -- abolished the laws or enforce them. guest: absolutely. if you do not like the law, change them, but do it in a fashion that is consistent with the constitution. host: independent color. wisconsin. -- independent caller. wisconsin. caller: thank you. thank you foresees been. would it be legal for arizona to setup a bus depot and if people do not have documentation, send them to a sanctuary state decks out of your state? i do not know if you can lead -- state? out of your state? i do not know if you could legally do that. if somebody is pulled over and ice does not want them, how do

you get into court if you do not know there are? you give the mccourt did, they will not show up. why should they bet when i worked in chicago i work for a company where the majority of workers were illegal immigrants, and the order of the company would deduct withholdings from these guys, knowing they're not filing their taxes. you get to know these guys, they do not want to stick their necks out, be involved with the government at all, still the boss was holding money from their checks -- so the boss was holding money from their checks and not paying it to the government. if i go to the emergency room for treatment, instead of getting billed by the emergency room doctors, can i just say i am here you legally, you have to treat me, i have no address?

identifying yourself is a fact of life. host: you brought up a lot of points. first, i want to get some clarification, but a senior legal immigrants out of arizona, what purpose with that -- bussing illegal immigrants somewhere else, what purpose would that serve? caller: a would place a burden on one of these states or cities. they seem to believe that burden should be borne disproportionately by texas, arizona, california, the border states. guest: first of all, i do not think that would be permitted by the law because as the court ruled, we would have the ability to look at immigration status but we would have to turn those over to ice. so, i would not be possible.

second, you can not hold and detain these like the previous speaker talked about based on the parameters of what you held them for, like a drunk driving or jaywalking. if they would have to be similar in their application. you could not hold them across the board. you also bring up a good point about the quandary of sanctuary cities and predicaments. they say they are sovereign, but they do not say the state of arizona is sovereign in its application. if the state can try an illegal for crimes and execute them, and that was one of the arguments from justice scalia, that the state has some sovereignty, but this will be one of those things where arizona is a leader. thank god. i am proud they kicked and screamed coming into the union, and they are asking questions

again, and that is what leadership is about. pursuing unanswered. host: the caller from wisconsin also brought up the question of tracking people that have been pulled over. let's say an officer pulls them over, identified said they are here illegally. how do you keep track of repeat offenders? guest: that is part of the problem. when you see the break -- the break down like i highlighted with the department of homeland security, it is hard to work in a collaborative aspect. that is what america wants, and the supreme court hinted at this. working together, state, local, federal law enforcement, utilizing resources well -- that is what americans want. host: misery. -- ms. sorry.

terry, republican column. caller: congressman, my question is, in the ruling from the obama administration to set as a -- to set aside the state of arizona regarding its ability to access information from the federal government, your attorney general should bring forward an action against the federal government that says you do not have that right to attack a state. you must give to every state and equal access to all information and a balanced approach, congress included, to funding. would you feel at this point that your secretary of state and

your attorney general should take action immediately and ask the supreme court to say is this basically a contempt of court by the federal government to stay while you have ruled on this, we will do this against that state even though u.s. the supreme court of our land have ruled on this to be appropriate. here's what we will do as the federal government, we will preempt a state of access to information. i just do not see why there should ever be any action like that from the federal government, were it not approved by congress. host: let's get a response. guest: i brought this up yesterday.

when they retaliated with 287 g, i thought it would be very wise, and i think our governor will do it, sitting down with the secretary of state and the attorney general and defining those roles. this is not anything new. if you look to this administration, the subject will be coming up here, fast and furious, the dream? -- descanted administration likes to pick winners and losers, -- dream act -- this administration likes to pick winners and losers. it seems to me that is an over- step by the the administration. host: twitter -- guest: i wish i could tell you that. i do not have those numbers. the state legislature and the

governor were firm about upholding that because the look at this as a severe problem that has severe -- many parts and they want to make sure they were equitable, allowing justice to be served for everybody. host: representative gosar, let's take a listen to the governor of arizona reacting to the supreme court decision yesterday. [video clip] >> we know the eyes of the world will be upon us. the critics will be watching and waiting, hoping for another opportunity to continue their legal assault against our ste, but i have faith in our law enforcement. our brave men and women in uniform have been trained to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in harmony with the constitution. civil rights will be protected. racial profiling will not be tolerated. senate bill 1070 is equally

committed to upholding the rule of law while insuring the constitutional rights of all in arizona are protected, including prohibiting law enforcement officers from solely considering race, color or national origin in implementing its provision. in fact, under my direction, senator bill 1070 was amended to strengthen and emphasize the importance that civil rights are protected. host: that is arizona governor jan brewer yesterday reacting to the supreme court's decision. here is a headline from "the los angeles times." "the chicago tribune" -- host: we can see headlines from around the country. is the governor from arizona sugar-coating this, claiming

victory when there are reports of a lot being thrown out? guest: where i agree with governor jan brewer is the meat of this is what we need to have, the ability to check the immigration status, and the court upheld that. how do we proceed? it will be cautious. the other three that were strike down, it is also an invitation that if congress deems the states have those -- that jurisdiction, they can deem that, and that is why it is a congressional act. that is why we will pursue that. we believe in working with all parties. our constitution demands that, having collaborative aspect of working together. host: "the washington post" those with this headline --

host: we will be watching to see how states move forward on this issue. bruce. democratic caller. caller: thank you. i believe this question has been framed incorrectly four years. ask the american population how many people you want here we have a population of three of 15 million -- 315 million. we do not have enough oil. our water resources are short. the place to recreates are crowded. i have supported obama, but i am upset with his stance on immigration. how many people do you think we should have in america and when would you like to see us get there? i would like my kids to have

grandkids. thank you for taking my call. guest: you bring up a great point, bruce. that is part of the discussion with america about immigration. not only are you a country of laws, but those laws can dictate how many you bring in in any given year. we bring in over 1 million people every year through immigration, legal immigration, and that is more people than any other country that i know of. i might be wrong, but i doubt it. that is part of the discussion with america. america wants to be involved with that discussion. we want to uphold law first, and the promises that are kept, and that is why we are consistent about securing our borders, knowing who is coming in and leading. host: bob. an independent caller in new york. what is your reaction? caller: thank you for taking my

call, c-span. i was glad they upheld the part of this law, but i'm curious what the congressman believes about the sitting president and the attorney general saying they will not cooperate with the state trying to enforce federal laws that are on the books to pander to a voting electorate that is only 20% of the population in this country. we do not get to pick and choose which laws we are going to obey and not obey as u.s. citizens, and i'm wondering why the president and the attorney general would allow our country to be overrun by people who, granted, are coming here looking for a better life, but we as tax-paying citizens are paying higher taxes for schools because

of illegal for children that are here, and the health-care system -- they're going into hospitals, getting. for, and we are stuck paying the bill. -- cared for and we are stuck paying the bill. host: attorney general eric holder said yesterday --

host: covers and goals are, your reaction? guest: -- thomas and goals are, -- representative gosar, your reaction? gee, i find it egregious that as a member of congress -- guest: i find it agreed to set as a member of congress i use voter identification come here on my voting card but also on my pin i had not worn today. if that is good enough for members of congress, it is good enough for about who could reach a good enough for who could come to the polls with valid -- about who could, to the polls with a valid id. one of the subject we will talk about is fast and furious, in arizona issue, where we gave guns to do drug cartels without

doing proper detective work. of the said administration looking at arizona as a stepped-up -- stepchild in the united states but i am proud of arizona for leading the way, calling out questions and holding this administration responsible for their actions, particularly in law enforcement. host: let's look at a story from cbs. host: there is a lot on the docket before the fourth of july recess. do you think this is a distraction? guest: i do not. this is what this administration was asking for, and they will get it.

i do not think mr. eric holder will comply with the subpoena, and i want these to proceed. i find it very odd that we are always looking at the rule of law or setting it, but we hold ourselves of buffett. mr. holder and the president -- above it. mr. holder and the president are no different this could be a very interesting week, and it will not be a great week for the president and this administration. host: lawrence. a republican caller. caller: i do not know where to start, actually, but i'm wondering at what point all of these children became wonderful dreamers? i remember in 2007, the marches with literally tens of thousands of young mexicans, dragging the american flight through the

streets, spitting and the american flag -- on the american flight. you can find it odd youtube. it reminds you of the british are coming. the latinos are coming, and the latinos are going to win. everyone is a valedictorian, how many of them are a gang members? how many of them have three and four children by the time they are 16 that we are taking care of? there is also the thing that nobody will talk about, and i have many friends here that are hispanic that feel like i do, but the one thing nobody will mention is that it is part of the mexican culture, to be able to drink and drive, and because none of them have cars in mexico the first thing they want to do

is get a car and drink and drive in america. there are 12,000 americans killed every year by people better here illegally, drinking and driving. the wife of the richer in arizona that was killed was -- and the wife of the rancher in arizona was killed coming out of church on a saturday morning by a man from mexico driving while drunk. host: she sees a lot of immorality among immigrants. what do you think? guest: i do not think that is limited to the illegal immigrants. we have said in arizona that application of illegal immigration is not just the southern border. it is the northern border as well. we also have questions across the board, the ties to our constitution, the ties to owing

a part of the game to this government. if you are not part of it, you are not a participant. host: here is a story from the earlier this month about the policy changed to allow young immigrants to remain in the country and worked, not face deportation. you did not agree because you talk about federal overreach and taking on the role congress should be serving. what do you think should happen to these young people? guest: before i came to congress i was a dentist. i was a businessman. once again, there is no trust. you cannot solve the problem until you know the magnitude. we have these estimations and gases. the first thing when the bath is being flooded that you do is turn off the water. that is within their present arizona has demanded, enforce

laws -- that is one thing in arizona has demanded, enforce laws. the problem is every time we get a problem, the federal government backs and out on the agreement with the american people. host: lee, a democratic caller in houston, texas. caller: white is c-span -- why is c-span saying that the show your papers part of the supreme court ruling is part of the law? you have to be arrested to go through that process. police on the street can not stop you for a traffic violation and s q to show papers. that is not what the law -- and ask you to show papers. that is not what the law says. that law never had a chance in

the first place. in order to check somebody's papers, you have to be detained or arrested. host: let me share with you how "the new york times" looks at this issue. host: the provision requires state law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to believe the individual might be in the country illegally. what is not allowed any more is arresting somebody without a warrant because they are suspected of being the portable or they cannot make it a state

crime for immigrants to seek or hold jobs without proper documents. it has also thrown out making a state crime for immigrants to fail to register with the federal government. brandon. dover, delaware. independent. caller: i would like to know, is there any way you could make a suggestion to other states that before high school kids graduate they would have to take their state history? i lived in delaware, but i graduated in arizona. before i graduated they said it was a policy that i had to take arizona history, which i thought was interesting. in delaware, you do not have to take anything like that. i think it should be. a lot of kids graduate from their high schools without even knowing their state's history. guest: our educational system is

failing miserably in we need changes, but one of those things is utilizing the states and local communities as an incubator for the greatness of education, rewarding excellence. i believe you have to have government aspect in education as well as knowing what is your history. you have to know where you came from before you go forward, but i caution the man did. i'm scott -- mandate. having a federal policy, i think that is where we go astray. host: jim wright's in -- guest: it is how you look at the interpretation of the law. been here illegally is illegal. being a participant in this government means that you buy all to no other government.

-- bile to know what their government. that is a core problem. what is legal action, and what predicates your being a citizen? a lot of the discussion is not resolved, and that is why we are in a quandary. we have not had leadership that is decisive and brings everyone together. host: another tweet -- does anyone think this ruling will stop racial profiling? guest: i think that was one of the cautions. we do not have ruffle -- racial profiling. even though we are highlighting this on our southern border is not the only aspect of illegal immigration. we seen this use coming from europe, asia, indonesia. this is a process that we need to review. host: tampa, florida. are you with us?

caller: in s.i., when all of the immigrants come through, you can see on the statue of liberty is says give me your tired and your poor, but that means honest people, not criminals and degenerates. the almost exact match from illegal immigrants in this country almost exactly matches unemployment, and that side of it. it seems like that is the problem and everything, you know? we all have to wait on immigrants, of being our parents and stuff. in the past, everybody had to wait in line, not just jump across the border. allowing the president to go over congress just seems

pointless. guest: not only pointless, but defining the constitution and re-establishing what the administration and -- and the president thinks are his right. we need to have three equal sides of government. there has to be a balance. we have really skewed that lately. it has been skewed all the way around through history. this is a time of reckoning where we have to get that balance back. host: representative paul gosar, representative of arizona. you were in the arizona yesterday, thank you for being on the show aired guest: -- shell. guest: thank you very much. was nice to see the cool weather. host: coming up, we will talk

about the supreme court decision with representatives silvestre reyes of texas. we will also talk to brian sigritz. first, this news update. >> an update on the presidential election -- former secretary of state condoleezza rice in remarks earlier tried to tamp down any speculation she could be mitt romney's vice presidential running mate, saying she did not run for student council president and does not see herself in elected office. meanwhile, mitt romney campaigns in western virginia, stopping at a caterpillar dealer as the obama administration begins a television advertisements aimed does virginia really want and out sorcerer and chief in the white house? the president will be in atlanta.

politico rights today that representative charlie rangel is facing the most serious primary of his 42-year congressional career, forced to run in a newly drawn seat. a state assemblywoman is emerging in the race for the seat of retiring gary ackerman. we will keep you posted on those results. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> sunday, award winning officer -- author david pietrusza, whose passion has resulted in 20 books. join us live with your calls, e- mail and tweets sunday at noon eastern on c-span2.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: representative silvestre reyes, thank you for being here. share with us your reaction from the supreme court decision yesterday. guest: it is a mixture. i'm certainly glad that the -- that they overturned the bulk of the things that s.b. 1070 was about. there still remains a lot of concern about the "show us your papers, but being former law enforcement, i like to tell people that is a fundamental requirement for any police officer, or law enforcement officer, to be able to identify a person. so, overall, i think it was the

appropriate ruling. host: you serve as the u.s. border patrol agent starting in 1969. in 1984 -- in 1984 you are promoted to sector chief, and were the first hispanic chief to have that officer. tell us what inside that gives you? guest: as the only member of congress that has a border enforcement background, i like to tell my former colleagues that i keep in touch with and are now in leadership positions in customs and border control, for used to work with me, i'd like to tell them that people ask my opinion what they do not follow it. that is the nature of politics -- that they do not always follow it. that is the nature of politics.

it is an interesting experience to have had that background, that experience, that knowledge, and then have to deal with the frustration of politics here at the federal level where policy is made. host: do you have a sense of how this will play out? since three parts of the law were struck down, one is retained, how will it be for a law officer who polls someone over? what will they do differently and what will be experienced be like for the person being pulled over? guest: the big concern we have is the issue of racial profiling. i've been not just to arizona, and i have three sisters that live in the greater phoenix area, so i get a chance to go there often, and they and their friends tell me that they experienced this racial profiling. that is probably the biggest

concern. the other concern is that police departments, the chiefs of police, sheriffs, they depend on people's willingness to come forward and report criminal activity, report crime against them. this s.b. 1070 has certainly interfered with that because nobody wants to talk to any police officer when they themselves might come under scrutiny in be forced to identify, and be forced to prove they're in this country legally. that is the biggest concern. most chiefs will tell you it does not serve the public security interest when a lot like this is on the books. host: congressman silvestre reyes, democrat of texas. democratic caller.

washington, d.c.. caller: there are a lot of people talking about illegal immigrants and the fact that the state of arizona could discriminate against stopping someone based on just the way they look, but my concerns are if they are allowed to stop illegal immigrants and are rest them, with baby -- and arrest them? -- arrest them, would they be housing these people with the federal government? with the state not have to build more prisons to house these people if they cannot be deported by the federal government? i believe the federal government has to deport them. what does not create a financial problem for the state -- would this not create a financial problem for the state of arizona?

they would have to pay more money. there would to be taxed for the state government as well. host: let's find out. guest: i mentioned racial profiling, which is what his first issue was. a law-enforcement officer stopping someone by the way they looked instead of on a warrant or suspicious activity -- but back to the other question about detention, the obama administration has been very clear that they are going after the criminal element. i think most communities understand that it and appreciate that, and they agree that we do not want any other country's criminal element to come here and wreak havoc in our neighborhoods. so, if it is someone that is just basically in the country on

documented, please stop to identify, it will be dependent on the local office on whether or not they will be handed over for custody. the police generally do not want to unnecessarily clod of the judicial system or the detention system -- called up but judicial system or detention system for people that have been stopped going to work for the grocery store. host: should the state or federal government take the lead on immigration? guest: it is certainly a state issue. there are certain things the federal government is charged with. regrettably, some states have tried to insert themselves out of frustration. i find it interesting that in

arizona is one of the most -- that arizona is one of the most vocal states about the obama administration not doing their job when unprecedented customer and border control resources have been assigned to arizona and where for the first time in almost four decades we now have a net loss in terms of undocumented apprehensions coming across the u.s.-mexico border. i would argue that the first is a federal rule. secondly, we cannot afford to have 50 different immigration policies in this country. host: you mentioned the word "frustration" -- states taking up the initiative out of frustration. we can see five states that have

enacted similar immigration laws. 24 other states have laws in the works. guest: well, i think there are several factors at work here. one of them is a to xenophobic -- is a easing a phobic issue where people are afraid week a xenophobic -- a xenophobic issue where people are afraid of people from other countries in their neighborhoods. the most important thing to recognize is that in states that have passed these draconian laws they are now experiencing the fact that crops are riding in the fields. arizona and georgia are good examples -- alabama and georgia are good examples of that. not only do they create an atmosphere of fear for

immigrants and minorities, they also undermine areas like agriculture when people are afraid to do the kind were the most americans will not do. host: allen. republican caller. new york. caller: i'm calling because of the fact the reason we are in this problem is in the late- 1980's, senator kennedy promised the american people the same things that are being said now, we have to fix this, it is broken, and i s and alter- conservative supported that. we were told we were giving amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens but we were going to have a way that the employers that are hiring the illegal aliens are going to be able to identify their true identity. it was not until we got e e-

verify that it was mandatory. every time there is transportation law, republicans try to have an amendment that anybody working on an airport or something like that, that the companies have to have used in verify. the democrats have turned down that amendment. we had an amendment where people were working nuclear power plant. the people contract and to come on those plans, they have to use e-verify. the democrats turned that down. there were guys working under false identification and he is now living in yemen. guest: it will probably be a

shocking revelation to tell you that a lot of these votes cited our message pieces. sometimes they are designed to reinforce what is already on the books, in this case in- verify. i will tell you, to the bigger issue to her comment from senator kennedy in the late- 1980's, i was the chief in the south texas when the immigration reform and control act was passed under president ronald reagan. back then, the the estimates were that we were going to have to deal with ought to 9 million undocumented people, giving them amnesty -- with up to 9 million undocumented people, giving them amnesty.

in reality, that was 3 million people. decisions were made there were not proper. the passage of that lot actually worked. it was not until congress failed to give the resources for employer sanctions that things when back to the status quo, and that we are now having to deal with that issue all over again. so, the fault lies at the feet of congress for not following through on the employer sanctions provision. those of us that were along the border that had the resources to enforce the employer sanctions saw a dramatic drop in undocumented presence and undocumented illegal entries for the first 12-to-18 months, so it worked until congress failed to do its job of funding employers

sanctions. host: representative silvestre reyes, democrat of texas, who is a co-chair of the southwest border caucus and the house party caucus. he served with u.s. border patrol started off in 1969, was promoted to sector chief, and prior to that served in the u.s. army. memphis, tennessee. caller: i have a comment. i am against illegal immigration. i do not know too much about the ruling of the immigration law, but i know there is a lot of race-pandering going on, giving latino's writes that the citizens have because of their race. i believe that. i think it is about crime. it is not about racial

profiling. they're breaking the law. they're coming over here, shortening our resources, and you do not know who was coming over our border. they might be from a game, killers commit anything. they come here, the over- populate the country. we already have over three again million people here. -- 300 million people here. i think it is a waste of money to detained and deported these people. the best way is self- deportation. take the rights said they have that they give to regular citizens, and take their rights away from them. do not let them go to a hospital, where be protected under the law. they will go back home. as long as we give them rights they are going to stay here. host: -- for guest: first and foremost, the u.s. constitution

applies to all people in the country. secondly, we spoke about the results of these kinds of laws, the impact they have no industries and agriculture and other impacts. are there undocumented people that use hospitals and services? yes, but that is a law that protect all people in this country that if you are hurt, injured or sick and you go to the emergency room, the law says you have to be taken care of, and every year millions of dollars are written off by hospitals that follow that lot. host: the caller expressed concerns over people that commit crimes. the obama administration says it is deporting more people in the prior administration and is focusing on those that commit crimes. guest: exactly, and those

statistics bear that out. i think 386,000 people have been deported under those guidelines. so, i would argue not only has president obama done more than anyone to fortify the border area -- i retired in december, 1995, and we had 5600 border patrol agents. today, the figure is about 22,000. we also have the accompanying technology and forest- multipliers with that under the leadership of president obama. i think credit needs to be given where credit is due, and i think we always want to remember that we are a nation of immigrants. we are a nation with that legacy, and it is not about

somebody being the last person in and pulling up the ladder. host: derek joins "washington journal." a democratic caller in atlanta, caller: i do not know really where to start, because i'm really one person that wants the hispanic and latinos to leave my country. i heard the jomon on tv say have rights under the constitution, but how can you have rights when you came over here illegally? you do not have any rights. host: would to clarify? do you mean all hispanics, or those here illegally? guest: i should leave the country because i'm hispanic? caller: let me speak, please, sir. the ones who are here illegally

are the ones who have -- and you are letting these people into our country. they are stealing our resources and taking our jobs from us. american people are not working. guest: how do you explain the fact that crops are running in the fields? i believe the gentleman from georgia -- a georgia is one of two dates, and i think the other is alabama, where crops are literally running in the field because there are not enough immigrants to pick out. i think it is important to note that the constitution protects everyone for a reason. that is a fundamental part of the legacy of this country. and i would certainly caution people about making general statements about -- like "all

latinos need to leave the country." if that applies to latinos, who else? probably 95% of the people here have an immigrant background. and those that live on the border -- i represent a possible, the safest city in the country. -- i represent el paso, the safest city in the country. we have seen that border crossed us. we have not crossed the border. it has crossed us. we have the right and the expectation for the protections afforded by the constitution. host: here in the associated press, supported by j. reeves. our caller, as you mentioned, expressed anger at all ke

hispanics, not just those here illegally. do you have concerns over states' rights versus federal rights creating heightened tension over like to know communities? guest: sure, and there could not be at more -- a more erroneous misconception than the fact that not everyone who is here illegally in this country looks like me. a lot like you and would not be racially profiled, even though they come from places like ireland, canada, some of the european countries, russia, and other places. i said this often when i was chairman of the intelligence committee. comprehension immigration reform makes sense because it is a national security issue. we have created a shadow world in our country because congress failed to employ it -- but

failed to fund employer sanctions. and today we have 9 million, 12 million, whatever the figure is where people who come into this country expressly to do us harm can move in that shadow world. we need to give people a reason to come out of the shadows and identify themselves. comprehensive immigration reform makes sense on the basis of our national security. host: john, a republican caller in new hampshire. good morning. caller: when you for start of the show, you have an hour. i thought you came over to the good side. are they -- those that are being pulled over, are they in the cars, or driving the cars? guest: actually, both. immigration laws like 1070 in arizona give any police officer the authority to stop anyone

anywhere under both of those circumstances, and required documentation. the part that was struck down by the supreme court is the one that said, if you do not have proved that you are in this country legally that -- then you can be arrested for failing to show your papers. it applies to people that can be racially profiles, whether driving, walking, at a restaurant, or otherwise going about their business, which also speaks to the fact that the supreme court could see that as an issue. host: and the caller was referring to a graphic error where we initially had defied you as a republican, but we know you are a democrat. you are in your eighth term as a

democrat. tell us about this headline -- arizona ruling helps obama and hispanics. tell me about the democratic efforts come november. guest: it should not be about any election. it should be about doing what is right. it should be about the protections that are afforded anyone in this country regardless of who they are, what they look like, would they worship, and all of those fundamental issues. certainly, it is the right decision, and if it helps get president obama get reelected, so be it. host: next call from georgia, in atlanta. caller: i am an immigration officer. but one thing that i keep hearing that is not being said is the role that the united

states immigration services, uscis, plays in all of this. we do the background checks and if we have someone who is applying that has committed referralsen we issue to o.c.e. we are really over shattered. the one of the things that people do not understand is becoming a citizen is so expensive, an estimated $10,000 per person if they do it in person with our hiring a lawyer. a lot of people cannot afford to, although they want to become citizens. they are not financially able

to. but we have people who have lpr status who let their card expire and they are not find any additional fees for having expired. we as officers have so much work in front of us. we are subject to congress. we have plenty of work. we could work 80 hours of overtime if we wanted to. myself, i actually get a pay cut at the beginning of the year. i know this is not really wrapped together, but there are so many comments i had on my mind that i think are not being addressed by the current media and the congress that i think need to be addressed. host: thanks for sharing your story. before we let you go, what do you think about what the supreme court decided yesterday? caller: i was at work, so i did

not catch all of it. one thing is, they talk about papers. the biggest thing is, the employment authorization the green card, those get back lot. the i-90 form to replace the green card gets a huge backlog. unless someone has "paper" that has expired, it is really a problem. we do not have enough overtime hours and we do not have enough time to get these into proper order. there is more than we could ever have expected. guest: there is thought to be -- and again, it is on congress.

thank you, by the way, julia, for the work that you do at cis. it is vital and important. this is a good example of cis citizenship services being of low priority. the thing is to be tough and send resources on the border. there are two areas that have largely been ignored. the one is the department where juliette works. -- where julia works. the other one is ports of entry. those are vital and crucial because of trades and congress -- trade and commerce. the number one is taxes. second and third, depending on the statistics that use or elsewhere.

there are long waiting lines to come across the border. that impacts trade and commerce and affects literally every member of congress in their respective districts or states. there is an imbalance we need to correct. i have had legislation the last two congresses to focus on the ports of entry. we can no longer depend on ports of entry that were designed for the 1950's in the 21st century. there is technology, infrastructure, personnel that are needed at the ports of entry. julia makes the point that the fault is with congress. >> congressman sylvestre reyes

represented the 16th term in districts. it appears to be your last term in congress for now. you lost your battle in the primary. it took people by surprise that you lost your primary. what do you plan to do now? guest: counting military time and then border patrol and our congressional time, i have been working for 45 years and 14 days. i promised my wife will take some time off. we will do that starting in january, thanks to the outcome of the election in the primary. but what is not included in there is the citizens united

decision that allowed super pacs to come in under the auspices of taking out long serving, entrenched incumbents just because they are incumbents. they spent somewhere around half a million dollars to do that. it underscores the fact that this kind of dirty political money can subvert the vote of the people. many people have told me that there is life after congress. i know that. i am looking forward to it. we will see how things worked out for a possible. host: barbara in gainesville, florida. good morning. caller: i can hardly believe this vote is going the way it did. i am hoping and praying that the

last challenge of this terrible lot in arizona comes quick. host: you do not like the law, caller: correct i do not -- you do not like the law, correct? caller: i do not like it. i want them to throw it all out and i'm ashamed of the racists and bigots in this country. guest: so am i.. thanks. here is another article. host: some people do not like the law because they save the teeth have been taken out of it. is that true? guest: this 1070 that creates

this atmosphere of fear, most of that has been taken out. i did vacation portion, i told you as -- the identification portion, i told you as a former enforcement officer that has been taken out across the country. the fact that a police officer that identifies and somebody that may or may not be having the right to remain in this country by being here legally largely will depend on whether or not i.c.e. and customs and border protection have the resources to respond. because the administration is getting rid of the criminal elements, which they've done a very good job of. host: charles, on the republican line. good morning. caller: it boils down to

profiling people. how else are they going to do their work? i have been profiled. i am not of mexican descent. my skin is just as brown. there are certain neighborhoods you cannot walk in without being harassed and stopped. police officers or so above the law. i have been stopped by those who want to do a great job, but i've also been talked to like a dog. just because i am black. i have a lot of friends that have not experienced this. we're not talking abut anyone from irish descent, and german descent, canadian descent, whether any dissent that is not an african or mexican being stopped and talked to. host: thank you for sharing your story, charles.

guest: that also underscores the fact that most police officers, most shares deputies would rather count on the citizens of the neighborhood to be confident that they could come and say, listen, there is somebody that we think is up to no good that lives on our street or that is frequenting our street, things like that. without being fearful that they will be asked for identification and their immigration status. a lot in that decision yesterday. both the supreme court and the administration commented that there will probably be additional challenges. nothing is worse for a chief of police or a sheriff then to have -- than to have a lawsuit

filed because one of their officers stopped and "harasta" an immigrant or a minority that has -- "harassed" an immigrant or a minority that has legal status or is a lawful resident. a lot in that. one thing i should mention is that immigration law is the second most complex law in the world. maritime law is the only law that is more complicated. it is not something you can teach or acquire by osmosis. people need to understand racial profiling is a reality for minorities and for immigrants. host: pittsburg, a pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. mr. reyes, i would like to

congratulate you as -- as a veteran. as a veteran, i used to serve in fort bliss, texas. it was amazing to see the traveling through to mexico, traveling with white soldiers, the closing the border they asked for my identification. it is hard to believe that even as a soldier i would be discriminated against. thank you for your service. host: carlos, what did you think about the supreme court decision yesterday? caller: it is awful to see how americans truly feel about hispanics. the mexican community plays such a huge part in the city.

guest: thank you, carlos. first and foremost, thank you for your service. i always like to point out that when president bush sent us into iraq was an immigrant military. tthe i would also like to point out that when we talk about the dream kids, the kids that have been brought to this country through no fault of their own by their parents, their parents -- in many cases, they have never known any country other than this country. that is why the president by executive order passed the two- year time frame that they can stay, hoping that in the next congress will do the right

thing and passed comprehensive immigration reform for everyone, and most importantly, for our national security, which most importantly, carlos the serving in our military is representative of. host: congressman sylvester reyes, formerly of the house intelligence committee, and now serves on house intelligence and -- veterans affairs. coming up next, we will switch gears and look at a new report that examines the state budgets and friends they are improving challenges. brian sigritz joins us. first, this news update from c- span radio. >> republican carol issa is challenging president obama's

claim of executive privilege. the president claimed broadly covers documents about the program called operation fast and furious, not just those prepared for the president. but rep issa claims of those were to his senior advisor is. he questions whether president obama was asserting executive power solely to interfere with the investigation. eric schultze spoke yesterday saying that congressman issa's assertion merely promotes contention. on capitol hill today, were the

illinois democratic congressman jesse jackson jr. is on medical leave for exhaustion. the chicago tribune stated that it was the first public disclosure that he has been on medical leave since june 10. during that time, his office has issued at least 10 news releases. as to why jackson's office waited two weeks to tell his constituents, as the spokesman says it was a family request. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> july 7 and eighth, book and tv and american history tv will explore jefferson city, missouri. >> this is probably our most famous spot. this is what we show people when

they come into the archives here at the page library. this is a book about harriet tubman. it is called "harriet, the moses of her people." this book was written in 1866. the special thing about this book is that harriet tubman made her mark on there. that is the most famous autograph, if you want to call it that come on -- call it that, in page library. of course, she could not right, so she signed her mark with the side of the cross. >> that will be july 7 and eighth on c-span2 and 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: brian sigritz, thanks for coming in.

there is a new report looking at states, looking at their fiscal health. increasing of costs remain a burden. we see the word "recover," and yet also the word "burton." -- "burden." guest: there is still a lot of uncertainty, especially with health care reform, infrastructure and state funding. host: how do state economies track with the economy overall? guest: we are seeing some improvement with state revenues, such as some improvement with the national economy overall. we have seen some increases in

things like personal income taxes. hiring has started to pick up a little bit. but the improvement has been slow. states are worried about what is going to happen in the future with the national economy. host: medicaid spending is a major drag on state economies. why has the cost of it risen so much? guest: a lot of it has to do with the economy, with the recession and the downturn. we saw at the uptick in medicaid enrollment. this fiscal year in 2012, we saw state funds going to medicaid on the rise. the reason for that is recovery funds for states ran out in

2012. we saw a big increase this current year for state spending is projected next year in fiscal 2013 -- for state spending. it is projected next year in fiscal 2013 not to increase much. host: according to the national association of state budget officers and the national governors association, state medicaid spending is the single largest purse -- portion of total state spending. it increased 20% in fiscal year 2012. that is 23% more than the previous year. and federal spending fell by 8%. why? guest: in 2009, 2010, 2011, states received additional funds as part of the recovery act. but all of those expire in

fiscal year 2012. they will still receive the normal funds they do for medicaid. but zero of the additional funds, they expired. states had to give them back. also, maintenance requirements for states tried to keep levels to replace the fiscal dollars from the federal government. host: if he would like to double your state's fiscal health or how the economy is fairing overall, our your home community, here are the numbers. we have heard a lot in washington about what is being called a taxmageddon, gridlock, putting a lot of things off

until the end of the year. tax extensions will be continued. how has that affected the climate in the states? guest: it has really affected states. especially they are developing they -- especially as they are developing their budgets for fiscal year 2013. right now, spending cuts go into place on jayden refers. -- january 1. this affects what might be implemented, what congress might do and then -- in a lame-duck session. there is also a certain amount of transportation funding. there is a conference committee working to try to do some trott -- some kind of long-term reauthorization. it has prevented them from going forward with projects and they have had to scale back some

projects. there's a lot of uncertainty about the federal government. also, health care is another issue depending on how the supreme court decides. .

guest: california is an interesting case because governor there has proposed some tax increases previous year in fiscal 2012. we saw some tax expire in california. now the voters in november and california are going to have the opportunity to decide some of these taxes will be enacted from the tax increases. host: let's hear from californian, richard is a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. a few years ago, the state liability and medicaid here was $15 billion in the hole. it's really funny when the state come out with their deficit, it was $15 billion. all of this from people who are here a lot illegally. that was proven. how can you fix it? guest: head cade continues to be a big issue for california and for all the other states. we seen a lot of growth in

enrollment. we also saw that after the downturn in the early '90s and early part of last decade. we've seen increases and demands for things like medicaid but we've also seen in increases and demands for other social services and public assistance. which is to be expected during a downturn. of course this is coming at the same time state revenues dropping off. that partly led to budget shortfalls. host: let's go to delaware and hear from ken our independent line. caller: good morning. i'm calling in. i like to say good morning to your guest. i would like him to answer this question. that is i believe that the state is discriminating against giving out the benefits. the government should put the

money into programs being there's no jobs and people are sick. i also like to mention same with social security. they took the money and destroyed it. the government should put everything back even for the baby boomers. i like to listen to your guest comment on that. host: before we let you go, how do you think things are in delaware right now? caller: the states need help. when you have amnesty and illegals coming over here and not paying tax i'm denied. they get anything just like that -- some of them are illegal. host: ken you're talking about benefits and some of the social service programs. guest: yes. unfortunately we've seen a cut back over the past couple years. lot of that has to do with the fact that state have to balance the budget which is different from the federal government. the end of every fiscal year, states need to make sure they have a balanced budget. some instances, we have seen

cuts in various social services, programs going to help people that lost their jobs, you know, have seen their employment cat back. we definitely have seen a cut back in a lot of social services. i think he mentioned social security. it hasn't really impact the state as much. overall we have seen cutbacks in a lot of public assistance hasn't only been public assistance. we've seen cuts in things like higher education and some cuts in medicaid. seen cuts in transportation projects. cuts have been widespread not just in the public assistance or social service areas. host: here's a headlines from u.s.a. today. state in local spending at lowest point. state and local governments.

policy from supremes are running for -- the state trooper union endorsed democratic governor daniel maloy only to have the democratic controlled legislature eliminate a required size of 1248 troopers. the force has shrunk to about 1060. in ohio the republican governor john kasich stripped $30 million from nursing home. in hawaii the democratic governor imposed a contract that cut teacher pay and benefits. guest: i think state budget all serves governors and legislatures being cautious. there's a lot of uncertainty both with the economy and federal government. states are remaining cautious even though we have seen up tick in revenue. another thing states really drain down their rainy day funds

during the downturn. how we saw states build out their state fund, they actually peaked in 2006 and they really came down in 2009, 2010. some states completely drained rainy day fund. there's a movement to try to rebuild those. planning if the economy does more sour in the future, states are prepared to handle that. a lot of states are starting to restore some budget cuts. host: brian sigritz state fiscal studies director at the national association of state budget officers. phyllis is up next independent caller from illinois. caller: good morning. the question i like to ask, how does obamacare's medicaid plan affect those on medicaid already? i'm believing it will lessen the medicaid that we're already

getting. guest: i'm not sure of that actual aspect. the part of the affordable care act, obamacare, will see medicaid eligibility with more people enrolled in medicaid. there will be some other changes and creations of these exchanges where people can go interpret and look for different -- internet and look for different insurance programs. we see changes to high risk people and high risk pool. big part of that state is some of increased eligibility. the federal government will be picking up the majority of that tab. states might be facing some additional administrative costs from that sort of area. not sure exactly how much impact it's going to be on current people already enrolled in medicaid. host: jim from north carolina democrats line welcome. caller: good morning. thank you for the good work you

do. all my money is in the north carolina state employee's credit union. it hasn't been paying worth a darn. i was wondering is there any chance of the interest rates going up? guest: that's something that remains to be seen. you know, the credit unions, what's going on with state pension and that sort of thing. because of what happened with the stock market, pensions start to come down in the amount of investment returns and pension start to decline. some pensions underfunding increase. there's a lot of up certainty in all of those areas. host: deborah from cincinnati, ohio, republican caller hi. caller: hi. i have a question about the whole medicare system. there seems to be a lot of fault

in the system. host: deborah you're breaking up on us. caller: i'm sorry. how can you make it a career where others genuinely need the help. i have a harder time getting the help. is there any chance of getting a reform or does that help? host: you're talking about help through medicaid or medicare? caller: medicare and the whole welfare kind of system. host: deborah is asking about potential reform on the horizon. guest: medicare is pretty federally run. we deal with medicaid. there has been push at the federal level to start in those areas.

we saw a lot of talk with that last year with the deficit, super committee trying to look at those areas. so far we haven't seen any major reforms in those areas. think coming up after the election and going forward into the next congressional session, we're going to see more of a push to reform medicare and medicaid and social security. host: dan tweets that the state of illinois is behind paying its bills. it says illinois keeps falling further behind on its debt. how are states dealing with that? you mentioned they have a mandate to balance their budget. guest: illinois is taking a lot of steps. they've been looking at making some medicaid reform. they cut something like $2.7 billion in medicaid costings. they currently looking at things like pension reforms and a lot of states have done that now. sense the downturn begin, we

seen about 42 states make some form of pension reform. we are seeing things like increase retirement age. we've seen higher employee contributions required. we seen some changes of cost of living adjustments. illinois like a lot of states are starting making pension changes. illinois is trying to create some extra revenue too. increase gaming. we seen some other states, increase things like casinos. we haven't seen much on the lottery side. we definitely seen increase in number of casinos and some states are looking at online gaming. states are looking at any avenue they can to try control costs and make sure their budgets remain balanced. host: brian sigritz, we're talking about the recent fiscal survey of state that's shows that state revenues are finally

returning to prelevel. but the growing cost to providing healthcare and poor and medicaid is leaving most governments in tough financial straights. let's go to tells a democratic caller in texas. caller: good morning. you just spoke about surveys. surveys are actually kind of tricky. they don't tell the truth a lot of the time about the economy. what i want to know with obamacare, republicans cuts, immigration, medical, jobs -- i live in texas and rick perry says that texas has created more jobs. these jobs are more what i would say, minimum wage jobs.

that's not helping the economy and then on immigration, i think that the businesses ought to be fined and held more accountable for hiring illegals. i'm not against illegal immigrants, but if you don't make the people that make the laws accountable, then you know, this is what happens to the economy. guest: still lot of head winds facing the economy. we started to see some job growth but we haven't seen job growth to the level where it's getting back to levels where it was before the downturn. the caller mentioned some of the jobs created. some of the higher wage jobs are banished. there's still a lot of -- economy still facing a lot of head winds as we moving forward here. that definitely does impact

state economies and state revenues. as more jobs start to get created, we see up tick in state revenues more people working, contributing to personal income taxes. people feel more confident in the economy, they are more willing to go out and spend money. as you start to see the jobs return, state revenue will pick up even more which will help state budgets. you might see some previous budget cuts replaced. right now the economy is growing butting it it is still slow growth. host: we talked about the medicaid and the challenges having to meet the cost. here's how states are planning to contain those costs. enhancing programs integrity efforts half the states are doing that. 20 states are expanding managed care. nearly as many 19 are reforming the delivery system. other proposals and things being put into play include reducing cost and imposing limits for

prescription drugs. 18 states are limiting other benefits and some are reducing health professional pay raise or freezing those rates or instituting new or higher copayments. guest: we're seeing states right to reign in healthcare spending any way they can. each seen a lot of push and things like provider payments. we've seen some limits of benefits where they starting to cut back. we seen things like dental and vision and caught back in states. really has been a big push now kind of more long term to things like expanded managed care. states recognize that healthcare is going to be an issue going forward and medicaid spending is an issue going forward. kind of -- no matter what happens with what the supreme court decides, whole issue of medicaid and medicare spending is not going away for states.

we've seen before healthcare reform medicaid was the biggest growth area for state budget. we expecting that to be carried forward independent what happens with the supreme court ruling. host: c-span will be watching on thursday as the court announces its decision on healthcare case. we expect that to come around 10:00 on thursday. lisa independent caller from virginia. caller: it's great. we're in the d.c. metro area. we have been affected. coming from that standpoint. what's interesting to me, this person blaming this all on medicare. i like there's reform and states are trying to cut back and figure it out. but i think the states have their budgets and there are things some states don't have

state tax. some states don't have income tax. california in their proposition 13. i don't believe that medicaid or medicare is the bulk of their woes. before you go and try to fix that system or change and blame everything on them, individual states need to look and maybe repeal proposition 13. maybe have a state tax. maybe do that before requesting the federal government to bail these states out. if the state has to go bankrupt, let it go bankrupt. guest: the caller is right. states have made efforts in a number of regards to try to control spending. we seen lot of states do these reform commission, look at streamlining. some instances combining agencies. a lot of states looked at various tax reforms proposals this last legislative session where certain things

like tax expenditures and tax breaks gone to companies examining the benefits of those areas. we have seen some instances where states have looked look -- looked at some tax increases. state have looked at various ways of controlling cost. state employees seeing a number of layoffs, furloughs, cuts to state employee benefits, that sort of thing. so, it's definitely not only medicaid, there's a lot of other issues facing states. higher education being another one. states start to look at different reform proposals for those. new jersey, for example, looking at merging two different state universities to try to control cost and get rid of redundancy there. there's a lot of issues facing states. host: ryan ask, isn't

underfunding pension a standard state bunt trick? guest: different states have under funded their pensions by different levels. it's much of more of an issue of some states. states have been taking steps to change that now. states haven't begun to face -- they still face underfunded pensions. we've also seen some states examine kind of moving more towards a 401k system. states are looking at ways to reform their pension system. there's a recognition that's definitely a big long term issue for states. kind of interesting. it doesn't always play into balancing their state budget. most states have enough in their

pension fund where they can pay it out through the next 10 years or so. it's still somewhat of a longer term issue. that sort of thing. still somewhat of a longer term issue but states are recognizing that it's something coming up pretty fast here. host: let's hear how things are in fort meyer, florida. nicholas joins us on the independent line. caller: great to be on the show. i absolutely love c-span. ly make my question short. i notice a lot of people on the show blaming illegal immigrants. it cost me $20,000 to get my leg fixed. while i was in the medical office, i noticed that most of the people in it were baby boomers, older people. these people are absolutely terrified to death. so me, it seems like you got a

large group of people who are actually growing older, and incurring more medical cost last year of their life more than they paid into the system. i was just curious what brian's opinion on the situation was and how much maybe illegal immigrants are actually imposing on the system. thank you very much. guest: that's one of the big reasons projecting healthcare spending going forward here. even independent what happens with the whole healthcare reform ruling. one of the big reasons why we're expecting such a large increase in healthcare spending for states is because of the aging of the population and the elderly. obviously aging population increases the healthcare cost. as more people move into the retirement age, expect healthcare costs to continue to increase. state have taken some steps to try to control that as well. we've seen some changes for things like nursing home. been a little bit of a push to

people in inhome care. there's been a lot of ways states looking at. understanding the population is going to get older with healthcare. host: what part of costs does a state bare versus a locality, versus a federal government when someone comes in and seeks assistance? we're talking about illegal immigrants, we're talking about the elderly, poor, medicaid recipients. guest: as far as medicaid, it depends on the state. some more lower income states receive higher medicaid rates and some higher income states. host: they get more money from the federal government to help pay for medicaid cost? guest: exactly. federal government picks up the majority of it. it can be anywhere around 56%. the federal government is picking up the majority of the share medicaid spending.

we are still seeing state medicaid spending increasing. it does depend on the state as far as how much medicaid funding they're getting from the federal government. host: difference from dead cade and med -- medicaid and medicare. guest: medicare is more for retired people or elderly. host: steve democratic caller from san diego. caller: we had a primary here in which we defeated a cigarette tax increase. it goes to show you the mood the people in california are in. we're not going to be increasing any taxes on ourselves any time soon. you can expect the american free dream to be over just about now. host: steve what do you think

about that? did we lose you steve? why don't you react to what he had to say about that tax? guest: we haven't seen too many taxes increased. there hasn't been too much of an appetite to increase taxes both by voters and by politicians. last year we saw a really large tax increase in 2010 during the midst of recession. fiscal 2010 was probably the worst year for state budget. some were only temporary tax increases. in some instances those temporary tax increases have expired. we have seen some governors and legislators look at cut taxes. tampa is looking to cutting personal income tax, oklahoma as well is looking at tax reform. it's been balanced.

host: michigan, cindy, republican, good morning. caller: hello. about the callers calling in regarding the illegal immigrants. but yet he is not addressed illegal immigrants really at all. i want to know why. host: our guest is focused on the fiscal health of states. he's with the national association of -- caller: i understand that. what i'm trying to find out. what is truly the impact of the illegal immigrants and their draining on our system as a whole. host: the cost of states to illegal immigrants. brian sigritz. guest: there's been different studies looking at that. we don't analyze the cost of illegal immigrants across the states. it's one of those issues that affects the budgets. some states see an increase cost

or projected cost because of illegal immigrants of their state organization have done analysis look act how illegal immigrants can actually fill some other jobs that might be filled otherwise. still are paying things like sales taxes through rent. the analysis i seen on the impact of states is kind of mixed. some analysis are seeing illegal immigrants crossing states. some analysis have looked at the benefits of imaggression to states -- immigrations to states. it's not an issue we directly deal with. host: the fiscal survey of states recently out by the national association of state budget officers. it up shows -- it shows general fund revenue increased in fiscal year 2013 increase by $27 billion and increase in spending as well. what does those numbers mean in relation to each other?

guest: typically you normally see revenue and spending more closely aligned with state spend. i think it really goes to show how they agree states are being cautious. there are still concern about what's going to happen moving forward here. part of the reason why revenue is higher than spending. states are worried about what's going to happen in the future. they are thankful the economy has started to improve. we have seen an up tick in revenue. even the revenue increases -- still seeing revenue growth, it's not quite as strong as it was in previous quarters. we're still seeing revenue growth but it's come down a little bit. it's somewhat mixed most states, i think we saw about 31 states are projected to end this current year fiscal 2012 with revenues higher than the

original projections. 13 states are looking at revenues coming in low projections. the majority of states are seeing revenues come in about what their forecast but it's not across the board. although we've seen the up tick is not that we're seeing sustained double digit growth in revenues. host: matt ask whether any states consider corporate sponsorship to the budget. are states looking at that? guest: we've seen a fairly major push in that area. california right now is examining some of opportunities. i believe arizona might look at it as well. we've seen things like rest stops where states are looking. some public private partnership all seeing things like toll roads. on the transportation side, there's a lot of demand for more

infrastructure and transportation projects. i think transportation and infrastructure got a lot of attention after the bridge collapsed in minneapolis i guess it was back in 2007. when the economy start fall into recession, there wasn't as much of focus on it. there's still a lot of need to rebuilding bridges and building additional roads, looking at public transit. state have begun to look at different public private partnership as a way to rebuilding infrastructure and building new projects. host: brian sigritz state fiscal study director at national association of state budget office. we've been talking about the fiscal survey of states which shows that budget are improving however medicaid kansas kansas city -- costs are are rising. thank you so much being with us this morning that's all for washington journal today. thank you for joining us. we will be tomorrow morning 7:00 eastern time. have a