deal. on the student loan issue, the house has not taken this approach were say we are not going to do anything until the senate acts. the onus is on the senate to get to their vote to get over that hurdle and produce something. >> he said he wants to have some breathing room. he wants to fold this issue into some sort of higher education reauthorization act. if they got that, realistically, when would they do a reauthorization? what about the midterms coming up? >> it is up for renewal this fall. no child left behind ended in 2007. congress refused to act. there has not been a law governing federal dollars going to elementary and secondary schools since 2000 seven. -- since 2007.

this is not an issue that gets people excited to get moving on reform. they get excited for things that do not work. >> phil elliott, pete shrader, thank you both for your time. >> thank you. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] >> we will look more at student financial aid on monday. join us live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. this is a challenging time for people who are conservatives. we've got not only a democratic resident but a quite liberal democratic resident was not only been elected but reelected after putting into place some ideas and programs and projects

that i think are very wrongheaded. the public had a chance to think about that and they did reelect him grea. what i try and many others try to do is modernize conservativism, bring it in line with the challenges the country faces now, help conservatives and the rest of the country think about how to confront the challenges of the 21st century. neither party is doing a good job of that. there's a lot of opportunity for innking about what america the 21st-century needs to change about the way it governs itself, to get to get back to economic growth and prosperity, a cultural revival that we need. it is challenging. levine with yuval tonight at 8:00 on c-span's q&a.

host: we talk about immigration as the senate has a key vote coming up on monday. with us is alex nowrasteh and robert rector. good morning. let me start with you, mr. rector. this big procedural matter tomorrow evening, which will clear of the way for the rest of the week, as you see the senate get ready for its own end game on immigration bill, what goes through your mind? i think it looks a lot like 1986. we gave amnesty to 3 million people and we promised we would secure the border and we promised we would make it unlawful to hire illegal immigrants. we granted amnesty, we granted access to benefits. the other part of the deal was

never carried out and that is exactly what this is. you are granting amnesty. in exchange for that you're promising to build a chain-link fence at some point in the future. there is no money for that. all the things that are given away to the amnesty recipients, those are real because they're entitlements. there is no money here for a fence. they have to appropriate that money later. host: what you see in the senate bill? guest: i see a lot of good and a lot of bad. one of the good aspects is increasing lawful immigration going forward. that is different from the amnesty bill. 1986 was basically a legalization of the people who were here as well as a decent increase in border security. we saw that in the years after. we saw the increase in border security and internal enforcement. we did not have a legal way for people to enter the country, especially at the lowest skill levels. what this bill does is it

provides a limited pass way. -- pathway going forward. it is not be regulated enough but it is a step in the right direction. what will happen is we will see economic growth and benefits that accrue to americans. host: we welcome the purest-- the viewers to phone in with their questions and comments. something you folks did on the hill very recently, we read that the two of you took part in a closed session in the senate republican committee. what was that like? guest: there's a lot of confusion on this issue, particularly over the idea that because immigrants make the

economy, the gdp larger, the citizen has to be better off. a report made it clear, immigration always makes the economy bigger but the immigrants themselves almost take up all of that expansion. if the immigrants coming in are going to take more government benefits than they are going to pay in taxes, which is almost certainly the case, then the u.s. tax payers end up paying that. that is why they're going to lose six trillion dollars under this deal. host: did you take questions from the republicans? guest: a lot of the important questions at to the differences between --

research on this issue and that of the heritage foundation. the most important difference between the two areas of research is we include the economic growth, the increased economic growth that occurs because we have immigration reform. to their wages, to their productivity. it has been accounted for in the past and that was have been ignored in a lot of the research on this issue. host: some of the headlines on all of this -- what does dynamically scored mean?

guest: different things. the cbo said they may make an increase in r&d which will increase technology and the people more productive. they failed to reconcile with the fact that they were also reporting that 85% of the immigrants coming under this bill are low skill. it you wanted that technology boost what you needed was a very tiny number of scientists coming in. you do not need to give amnesty to 11 million people. you do not need to bring in low skilled immigrants. host: this piece says the deficit will cut $197 billion over 10 years. guest: the cbo score is the only 10 and a score that exists. it is merely a score of a fantasy piece of legislation they made up the have to do with the legalization part. that study is not a score of this bill. what they did, and this is remarkable for the first time in our history, is that they took

account the changes in the economy that would occur as a result of immigration. usually they do scoring assuming that gdp just doesn't change. they did for the first time and space and immigrants will increase the size of gdp. high school immigrants and all immigrants would increase the productivity of machines, capital, and business in the united states, increased economic growth, and over a 20. -- growth. guest: this is the same institution that as obamacare had zero cost and would pay for itself. that was not true. cbo plays a game -- the legislation is designed so the tax revenues occur during the first 10 years.

all of the expenditures occur outside the budget window and the actual cost of legislation are hidden. -- but it went up. all of the cost of legislation are hidden. guest: what the cbo score does is it goes 20 years into the future and we see some of the largest economic gain in the second 20 years, not just in the first 10. that is one way the cbo has done dramatic departure from previous studies. that is why this is one of the most interesting estimates put out by the organization. i want to say that free-market groups from the heritage, cato has been arguing for decades. it is great to see the results as they listen to us on this issue. host: we will start taking your calls. i want to remind you what the cbo is saying.

mr. rector? guest: what is missing is that it is true that when you bring low-skilled immigrants in they pay more taxes. there is no account of what government spending would be. it does not include state and local spending, which would be extremely high to provide free education for the kids of all of the immigrants coming in. overall the oecd and heritage foundation, oecd did a report on fiscal immigration. immigration costs the u.s. taxpayers $147 billion each year. we think it is $110 billion. immigrants do not pay enough taxes, to pay for the services they take up over time. this bill essentially does the

same thing in the only way cbo gets a positive score is leaving out the massive expenditures and almost all of the future social security and medicare and means tested welfare spending which the amnesty recipients -- amnesty recipients and immigrants would get. none of that is included in the score. it is an allusion to gain -- to pretend that the government does not cost anything. guest: it concludes at the end that the fiscal impact of immigration on the government of the united states is just not large enough to convince people one way or the other about immigration. it is really not a factor when we talk about immigration going forward. furthermore, the heritage study is an outlier. it is the only study done it the way this. they ignore many of the economic benefits.

it is not an economic study, more of an accounting exercise. host: we have a call from west palm, florida. good morning. you are on with robert rector and alex nowrasteh. caller: i used to be a democrat but i had to leave the party because of the narrative. this is not about immigration, this is a bill to help deal with the illegal immigration that has happened. i do not know who comes up with this number. last year it was 12 million. i work for a government agency. for the past 20 years i have seen illegal immigrants in every state in this nation. there is no where near a 11 million. it is probably three times that. in the shadows, no one is in the shadows. they come to my post office for the past 20 years, they come into any grocery store where i wherevero. -- store,

they want to go. they get benefits. all the have to do is have one kid. it is not a broken system, what is broken is we have laws that no one wants to enforce. guest: that is exactly right. in 1986 we granted amnesty to small number of people. we got many more recipients than we anticipated, in part because a quarter of the people simply committed fraud. one reason the cbo says this bill does not cost much is because they anticipate only 5 million illegal immigrants are ultimately going to receive benefits and pass on to get green cards. the number could be three times as high. the minimum we have is 11 million illegal immigrants. the cbo says half of them are never going to get any type of special benefit. -- any type of substantial

benefit. in 1986 we granted amnesty. we promised in particular that it would be illegal -- we promised in particular that it would be illegal to hire immigrants. that law has not been enforced for a single day since 1986. does the new bill enforce that law? absolutely not. it makes it a promise that sometime in the future we might enforce that law. it takes the current employment verification system, throw it into the trash can. "you can trust us this time." host: that last caller is not an uncommon thing. -- theme. guest: it is true that some people get welfare benefits. we agree wholly that the welfare state is a problem in the united

states. i just recognize the numbers show it is broken regardless of the number of people we have here. what is interesting is a weekend -- recent report we did back in march showed that poor immigrants in the states are far less likely to use government benefits than poor americans. let us not fool ourselves that the welfare problem is a domestic problem. if we need to build a wall from the welfare state and think-- state, i think we should do it. this legislation goes part of the way there. there are improvements that could be made going forward. welfare is the problem, not immigration, it is not poor people, it is the welfare state that is the problem. increasing the flows of people coming here and future will add to the economy and because all wealthier as a result. we should not ignore the impact. we cannot take a look at government accounting to come up with a response for that. guest: the average illegal and the great -- illegal immigrant has a 10th grade education. having 20 million new immigrants come in who have below average

education is not building a wall rhumba welfare state, it is expanding welfare state and create additional costs. -- creating additional costs. the fact of the matter is there is no way in the world that an individual with a 10th grade education possibly pays enough in taxes to pay enough for the benefits they are going to get. this bill takes 10 million people like that and gives access to welfare. it takes many more millions of high school dropouts in the future, brings them into the system, gives them access. i have yet to meet a single american citizen who believes that a person with the 10th grade education pays more in taxes than they did in benefits. you have to believe that in order to believe this bill saves money. guest: you have to believe these people increase the size of the economy. let me give you an example of how taxes do not count taxes they pay.

if you have a wife and she has children and you want her to go back into the labor force. if she hires an anti for $30,000 per year -- a nanny for $30,000 per year -- the taxes she pays as a result, the fact she has a low skilled immigrant to care for her kids, those of the economic benefits that are not accounted for. host: a call from vermont. thank you for waiting. caller: i was under the assumption that immigrants would not receive benefits for 13 years. i was also wondering why the assumption is that people are coming here to receive free benefits. the people i have encountered in my life seemed to work harder than most americans, skilled or unskilled. they seem to want a better life. host: thank you for calling.

guest: that is exactly rate. -- exactly right. it is hard for american citizens, even when standardized for age. when you take a look at an economic growth in the united states and the size of welfare benefits for people, the biggest draw for people is the economy and being in the the work force. it is not being drawn here for benefits. if they were being drawn here for benefits there would be more people coming across the border than ever before. what we see with the numbers coming here illegally is that they are the lowest numbers we have ever seen. part of the economy where a lot of these immigrants work are not just doing a very well. they do not come here as much for welfare. that has been the result throughout american history and holds today. host: robert rector? guest: immigrants come here for economic opportunity but they

also get a lot of welfare. the largest group that receives the most welfare group happen to be legal immigrants, particularly the lower- skilled illegal immigrants. that cost is going to cost over four trillion dollars altogether. the reality is that every time you have a high school dropout in the united states, it doesn't matter if it is an immigrant, if that individual produces twice as much productivity as they receive in wages and therefore they would have us believe that the illegal immigrants boost the standard of living of u.s. citizens by 1%, it would also follow the high school dropout

that report here in the united-- that were born here in the united states, raised the standard of living of other americans through their externalities', they raised your standard of living by 10%, according to that assumption. host: derek is on the line from minnesota. thank you for waiting. caller: thank you. this is the epitome of why our country is ridiculous at this point. we have alex talking about the benefits from illegal immigration because of the economic impact. to understand how a -- do you understand how ridiculous and pathetic that is? it should be stopped. it is ruining our country. it is a big piece of what is driving our country. they need better jobs and better positions.

maybe you should fight for the fact that maybe we could take over mexico. host: let us get a response. guest: i am concerned about illegal immigration as well. that is why i want to change the law to be more accommodating and be more consistent with american history. in this country our ancestors all come from someplace else. to say that your or my ancestors came legally, that was a different time. the most important part of this bill is that it allows an increase for illegal immigration going forward so we will have a little bit of a less -- a little bit less of a problem. -- legal immigration going forward so we will have a little bit of a less -- a little bit less of a problem. host: a tweet -- guest: it gives them immediately status so they will never be

removed. it gives an immediate access to earn credits for social security and medicare. it gives them the largest cash welfare program and the earned income tax credit. 10 years from now will go on and -- achieve legal status that will allow them to become u.s. citizens. the reality is the average amnesty recipient here is going to receive about $590,000 in government benefits beyond taxes they pay. they are going to pay a $2,000 fine. how did they get to write all of that money from the u.s. taxpayers? they get access to it because they came here and broke our laws. one of the things i noted in previous congresses i have been conferences i have been, a researcher said to me a lot of people in mexico would like a--

to come to the nine states but it is unlawful and they do not want to but the loss. we have 11 million people, giving them net benefits, setting aside of the magic talk. the clear thing is they are getting about $9 trillion of government benefits. why did they get all that stuff if they are not paying for it? they get it because they broke our laws. it is a massive injustice and shows absolute contempt for the taxpayer and the loss of the united states. -- the laws of the united states. guest: this piece of work does not take account the illegal immigration flows as part of this bill. -- legal immigration flow as part of this bill. i want to say, his point about how most immigrants will have a low education, that t

he says they are a fiscal drain on the u.s. government. if that is true than 70% of americans who have less than a college education are also a drain. it is clear our country would be a lot poorer and were soft -- and worse off. it is a total lack of economic understanding to save for moving -- say that removing these people are not allowing future people to come and would make as well. -- wealthier. host: we have keith on the line from houston. caller: this bill is going to be a disaster for the american people. [indiscernible] i'm in the largest city in the united states closest to the southern border.

the big thing is that -- we have a participation rate at the lowest it has been, we are simply going to allow up a million people to enter our workforce? what we say to the people that want to come here illegally and [indiscernible] we need to give them some kind of program where they can work legally. have a good day, gentlemen.

guest: the system is unjust. one of the clear things this bill says, and i want to emphasize this, this bill says the new norms of employment in the united states is 8.5%. as long as our economy and has unemployment that is below 8.5%, it used to be 4%, then we will continue to incorporate low skilled immigrants in the hundreds of thousands in order to come in and compete with the unemployed americans. if you have an unemployment rate of 8.5%, that means the unemployment rate of someone who has a high-school degree, that is going to be about 12% to 13%. this bill says that is the new norm in our economy. the caller is exactly right, you give legal status to 11 million people and you bring in all of these low skilled immigrants in the future, you are going to drive down the wages of the least skilled american workers. many of them are simply leaving the work force entirely, being pushed out by immigration. this bill will make that even the areas of the

country where immigrants go are those that are doing the best economically. what is clear as that in the united states right now, immigrants do not come when are not job opportunities. come allowing people to here and allowing americans to hire the people that they want to hire going forward. it is her marketable that we have a supposedly free-market think tank arguing government's job is to control the flow of production. american employers want to hire. guest: the government's job is to determine who the citizens of the united states will be. i don't think there is anyone he wants to basically grant citizenship and power over our becausent to people they broke our laws.

this law grants that citizenship. it also grants -- it will expand immigration in the future higher than any point in u.s. history under this bill. one in five americans within a few decades will be foreign- born. when you do that, you're changing the politics and culture of united states. it's not simply an economic matter. the economics of it are extremely bad. the government can't deliver the mail on time or paved roads properly. it is absurd to assume they can plan the culture going forward. these are the same arguments we heard a hundred years ago about the italians and germans and jews and other groups coming to the united states. quite frick way, the notion that the government, which cannot do anything right -- frankly, the notion that the government which cannot do anything right -- the 1986 amnesty, only 40% of them became citizens.

only 40%. arduousl is a much more process, it is mature difficult to become a citizen. -- host: democratic caller -- caller: i'm a lifelong democrat. the thing i don't understand is why would you solve the problem on the backs of unprotected workers? when you get thousands of desperate people for hundreds of jobs, you see this go down. why are you not holding up rogue employers accountable? you put a $200 fine on the workers and that is not enough. on the other hand, you have all kinds of standards that i, as an employer make. as soon as they sign an affidavit, saying that they swear at witness they have working in the united states, that information could immediately be used to track down those employers, bring them to attention and they should be

responsible for the thousands of dollars in fines and taxes that they owe. is it right to find employers for sending 1099'as rather than w-2's? you will give that employer direct amnesty? guest: it is foolish to punish employers for bad laws and the united states. in arizona and alabama and georgia, they have gone after employers with a vengeance. you see a decrease in economic growth and an increase in unemployment and a decrease in the number of businesses being started. i simply disagree with the economic assertions. when the legal arizona act for its 200,000 all unlawful immigrants -- and illegal immigrants -- at the state of arizona, we saw the second- largest housing collapse of any metropolitan area in the united states.

hundreds of thousands of people took their jobs with them and the spending power and their consumer spending power, their ability to buy real estate. it had a much more negative impact on the economy than what you are looking at now. that economic analysis we just heard only makes sense if there is a fixed pie of jobs and economic growth. immigrants will increase that pie for themselves and everyone else. guest: he did that answer that question because he believes any employer should be able to hire anyone he wants to including illegal immigrants. what he is not telling people is that he is an open border ideologue who believes there should be no control on who enters the country over the border illegally and to believes there should be no laws against hiring illegal immigrants and we should essentially allow anyone in to access our country, our economy, and to ultimately

become a u.s. citizen and vote. he believed all laws against hiring illegals have been wrong and they have opposed them since 1986 and he opposes all border control enforcement. he wants people to simply come here with no controls whatsoever and the caller is right that that will cost the taxpayer a fortune and it is already severely hurting less skilled workers. host: here is another tweet - it reminds us of the so-called murder -- border surge amendment. >> that is a fiction. there is no money. you have real amnesty in this bill, relax us to entitlements with real spending. the border stuff is what's called an authorization which, in washington parlance, is fiction. there is no money appropriated. you have to do that later.

guest: he has not read the amount of money or any kind of summary of this. this border member would increase the border patrol agents by 20,000 with cameras and watch towers across the border and would cost $5 billion annually. in this bill, there is billions of dollars allocated every year to border control. guest: is fictional money. you cannot appropriate in a bill like this. host: this is of the subject of tomorrow evening's of votes. you can watch the senate to take this up. the deal was struck late during the week. this is the headline in "the baltimore sun."

this could push the vote toward 70 votes. guest: i know the amendment is farcical the spending is not real. it is a promise to spend where in entitlement spending is real because it occurs at automatically. this money has to be voted on again separately in the future just like we promised in 2006 we were going to build 600 miles of double layer fencing and we have not done that. that was also authorized but not appropriated. the bill does not control the border at all. it does not require any great apprehension. it does not even require continuing monitoring. cornyn had an amendment that said the least we could do is within a decade, we could say we will have continuous supervision over the border so we can watch the entire border to see whether people are coming across. as bill says no. guest: you have not read the bill. i heard you have not read any portions of the bill.

it is dinh you -- it is disingenuous to talk about that because you opposed to that amendment. the heritage foundation has ignored is that this bill increases the size of economic growth and will help americans and the size of gdp and you cannot ignore that. guest: i have read this bill. what the bill says is not continuous surveillance. it says persistence surveillance when you ask what that is, it is not defined. it is a completely meaningless term. i have read this bill in great detail. it does absolutely nothing on the borders. host: let's get some other viewers, south carolina, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, i want to ask if 70% of the people or republican voters?

would you before this bill if they work republican voters and is this because of politics? this is not affect how this affects americans' long term, they want to buy votes. you keep talking about them being neutral. 50% of the people in this country don't pay federal pac -- taxes and the ones that do make a lot of money. i don't understand how you can talk about these people being tax neutral. it is almost like the democrats have figured out a way to rate the treasury and the republicans are joining in to get votes from these new constituents. democrats will just promise more and more. they will raid the treasury and it is by, by, miss american pie. you must be smoking some of the

things these people bring across the border. guest: the cato institute is not a democratic organization or left-wing group but libertarian. furthermore, i have not said one thing about the politics going that is interesting. i grew up in southern california and i saw this firsthand when the republican party committed suicide by deeming immigrants -- by condemning immigrants in 1994, blaming them for the state's problems. in 1990, pete wilson that 47% of the governors' vote. in 1998, the governors' vote for republicans was only 17% of hispanics and a drop in a similar portion for asians. it is clear the tone of that call and other people who are concerned about immigration is what is turning people off to the republican party and the conservatives on this issue. it is not the fact that these people are genetically programmed to vote democratic.

it is the fact that the republican party has been for on this. the counter example is in texas. it has an enormous hispanic population and has a lot of on lawful immigration and the republican party is enormously strong because it does not blame immigrants for every problem that goes on in the state. host: this is from "the daily beast." guest: i think the policy is that we should have enforcement first and then talk about amnesty later. this bill gets everything exactly backwards. i also think we believe you should respect rule of law. you should not be taking people who have broken our laws and have them pay $2,000 penalty and give them $580,000 in net to government benefits over the rest of their lifetime.

the fundamental issue here -- he is not a liberal, he is an open- border libertarian and wants no controls on the border, no controls on the hiring of illegals whatsoever. he believes it is absolutely every employer has the right to hire whomever they want to and you should have an unlimited flow of emigrants coming in to compete with u.s. workers. ultimately, they can polis -- participate in our political system and i don't think that is good for the country. guest: if he had done a modicum of research, i talk about the role of border patrol. to keep out criminals and terrorists and those with health concerns and other people will have negative consequences for other americans. the role of border patrol to be to funnel mark -- people into the legal market.

there should be a large guest- worker visa program. that's what happened in the 1950's and illegal immigration dropped by over 50% it is suspicious that mr. rector and those of the heritage foundation are not talking at all about the portions of this bill that increase legal immigration which would make it easier to get control over the border. if we shrink the size of the black market and make it easier to get the people who we do not want to come into this country host: here is that headline from "politico." guest: that is exactly the point. what we have said consistently is that high skilled immigration coming into the country does have economic benefits and has fiscal impact that is positive because the average immigrant that has a college education is going to pay $30,000 per year more in taxes than they receive in benefits. on the other hand, if you bring in an immigrant legally or illegally who has a 10th grade

education, they come on average, will cost the taxpayer $30,000 more each year in benefits than they pay in taxes. therefore, we have said that you should not be bringing people into the country that are going to be a net burden on the u.s. taxpayer. be bringing in people who will be a net gain abnd the cbo score is that. it's as maybe there is an increase in overall productivity. they are clear that comes from high skilled scientific workers, not from bringing in people with a fifth grade education. host: rapid city, s.d., independent college. caller: good morning, i have a statement, an opinion, and the question. first of all, this bill spells sells out the american people by the democrats and republicans. the democrats want a new voter base and republicans because they cannot seem to find a

backbone and say this is wrong. if unemployed americans find it tough now, one day legalize millions of people it will be more difficultthe cbo has been wrong in just about everything. my question is -- [indiscernible] thank you. guest: the bill for the guest worker revision says you have to do an enormous amount to try to hire americans first grade that's the way it is right now with the guest worker visa provisions currently. what's missing from a lot of this is how the immigrants help

make americans richer by working with americans in the labour market. the example i gave earlier is clear which is that if a family in the united states and the wife wants to go back to work and she has kids, now she will be able to hire a nanny better so she can go back into the legal market. the income of that man will be relatively low but they do not count the income of american workers who can go back into the work force and that multiplies across industries. there is a lot of academic evidence of this. the evidence is pretty clear. it is not magic. it is just economics. guest: the national academy of science disagrees entirely in their study as does most tree -- most mainstream economics. the organization for economic development said that immigration has the worst fiscal impact or is in the bottom two

of all developed nations bridge, because the united states has such a low educational level of the immigrants coming in. if you were to take the cato institute dynamic scoring, they imply that every time you have a high-school dropout whether they come from abroad or they are born here in the united states, they cause a positive boost in productivity. your readers will be surprised to learn that roughly 1/10 of their income is due to this mysterious productivity boost that comes from high school dropouts. it is absolute nonsense. they are using it to conceal what is their ultimate ideological base that they believe that anyone should be able to come to the eye to states who wants to. they believe in open borders and everything else they say is distorted in order to fulfill that goal. guest: people are an asset, not a lot of -- not a liability. if you take the notion that having these people here whether they are born domestically or

not are a drain on the economy, you have to conclude that 70% of americans who have less than a college degree are eight ways to to the economy. we found that is not true. we should be better off in a country but with fewer consumers and auto parts and workers, it would make us worse off. guest: the issue is not removing 70%. the issue is whether you can bring in tens of millions of additional people with the fifth grade education. that is the choice before us and whether you want to would reward people with over $600,000 in lifetime net benefits because they broke our loss. that is was going on here. host: columbus, ohio, republican. caller: i would like to wouldalex what part of illegal does he not understand? i believe this is absolutely

discrimination against any person that has tried to come into this country legally he has to go massive -- he has to undergo massive testing to become a citizen. guest: what part of legal don't rest of us understand? the legal immigration system now is one of the most convoluted, complicated and restricted portions of our immigration law. the days when a poor person could shop at ellis island and got three quick health screen or background check to see if they were criminal are long gone. that is not been the case in this country and almost a century. we now have a system that is so complicated, it is on par with the irs. there is no green card category for low-skilled immigrants. the guest worker visa program is limited and this is a small step in the right direction to reclaim what is an american tradition, a country of immigrants and allowing people who are workers who want the american dream to work alongside americans voluntarily to make as

wealthier in the process and themselves wealthier in the process. host: 10 minutes left in this segment. congressional "quarterly" as this perspective --

guest: i think they are not thinking about this very much now. most of the people in the house and republican side have stated categorically that they are against and the state. senator review also said he was against amnestied. that may not play out so well in the future. when they look at the cost of this and they look at the fact that what you are doing is rewarding people for breaking below, there will have a very difficult time going forward with this. i would agree with that article that business interests lobbying for cheap labor is a major factor here. that is why this bill says that our new norm for full employment will be 8.5% and high school- educated workers, it will be close to 15% as long as we've got 15% unemployment and things are swell and we will bring in more workers to compete with those who are unemployed. guest: i am always shocked at these big corporations are purported to bring down the

economy. people are an asset and not a liability. mr. rector is right that this is a difficult road and there are more skeptics in the house rather than the senate but ideologically, having more lawful immigration going for is a capitalist policy. it is one that allows americans to make the widest possible choice without government micromanaging their decisions. host: juanita from cincinnati, a democrat, good morning. caller: looking at both of you, i look at my family here -- we

are a middle-class black family. we on quite a bit of property and my great-grandmother was black and the remainder of my family was brought here against their will six generations ago. for the heritage foundation to talk about being against immigration, the one thing i never hear or seldom hear about out of the heritage foundation what about the people from ireland that are in boston and new york? what about the people from other parts of europe that are in having new england who came here as visitors and over-state? is it because they had better education? as far as i'm concerned, it is a pox both your houses because the 1986 bill was flawed to begin

with. the problem i have with heritage foundation is when you speak of minorities, it's usually down, down, down. for myself, i have been here -- my family has been here longer than you so what gives you or anyone in the heritage foundation the right to say a particular group is going to be a downer? i will wait for your answer. guest: i don't say that a particular group or ethnic group is going to be a downer. i say that individuals who come here with low skill levels are going to end up receiving more from the taxpayers than they pay and benefits. it is an interesting point about the italians and the irish at the turn of the century when we had our highest level of emigration coming in called the great migration. back then, there was no welfare state. there was not even a federal income tax.

the situation is radically different today. if you were -- if you allow some to walk into the country and become a legal resident, you essentially give them access to over 80 different programs of aiding the poor, access to public education that costs $12,000 per student per year which merlot -- most low-income people do not pay for. it get subsidized and have no problem with that but i know you cannot do that from an unlimited inflow of lower skilled people from abroad to get access to social security and medicare. all of those things did not exist in the early 1900's in the previous immigration flow. that's why is a different society today. just allowing anyone to come here who wants to come here or who can sensibly find a job, you cannot do that without imposing huge costs. who out there in the audience

believes a person with a tent reeducation pays more in taxes than they get in benefits? that list what you have to believe in order to support what is being advocated. it is simply not true. guest: if you believe having fewer people who here who are fewer workers and consumers, if you believe people are a liability rather than an asset, that makes sense. i think it is unfair to blame the heritage foundation's opinion on this. i think they are committed to this but not because of a notion of racism. i think they honestly believe this. i think they are wrong but not for any kind of racist reasons. the same arguments we hear today are the same arguments we heard 100 years ago. if you look at the early 20th century, people said this will cost american taxpayers money and these emigrants take money from local charities as well as local governments which had welfare states at that time the

new york police department that time was 100% iris and it was seen as a program to help irish- americans come in and be hired overwhelmingly in the police department. it is the same argument, it is just the 21st century and we are having them now. host: here is a day tweet- guest: granting legal status allows people to be more mobile and i don't have to live in the shadows illegally as a result of not being able to fear deportation. they invest more in themselves in terms of human capital so they go and get some skills and invest more in learning english and invest in a permanent life in the united states. after the 1986 legalization, the average increase in wages for the immigrants who work here because of the legalization is

they become more productive and their wages increased by 12-25% based on the most modest studies out there. being able to merely invest in education in yourself without the fear of being deported and the fear of having property taken is a boost to gain productivity and wages. guest: i don't want to play dueling studies which is the most boring form of television. i think the gain was far less than that. let's say that once you legalize the wages of these individuals, and they got 25% -- my calculation and no one has disputed these calculations, i show that once you give access to social security and medicare and obama care, obama care alone costs about $30,000 per year and it is outside thescbo budget window. they will get about $4 of government benefits for every dollar of taxes they pay.

it is the same thing that legal immigrants curly debt. let's say it is not for dollars. let's see their wages and taxes go up by 25%. instead of 4-1, it is 4-1.5. it is a fiscal disaster and what the republicans don't want their base to understand how much this costs which is why we have all this magic math about every time you bring in a high-school dropout, they produce many times their own wages in productivity. it is simply fiction. guest: the heritage foundation ignores the gdp and economic benefitsthe cbo and others have realized this is crucial to americans. the difference between the cbo and heritage score is a trellis of dollars and it would be nice if the heritage foundation would be behind this.

host: we're out of time. an hour was not quite enough. we say thank you to both of our guests. thanks to both of you for your >> the senatening. returns tomorrow to continue debate on the immigration bill. harry reid has set the stage for both to advance the amendment on the bill. that is at 5:30 p.m. eastern. a final passage expected sometime next week. live coverage when they return at noon monday on c-span. the house returns on tuesday at 2 p.m.. they will take up an offshore bill. live coverage when they return on c-span.

, jonathan alter talks about the president's second term agenda and his book. discussion about the affordable care act. , the witness protection program with its founder. live at 7 journal p.m. on c-span. onwe have always focused what is important. the telecom act of 1996 went into effect. in 1997 home will rolling out video and broadband services and residential telephone services, commercial services and bring in the bundle to the market. will the first to start bundling products.

customers responded very positively. we have a high penetration today. we have been able to get into new businesses that others cannot enjoy muff because we got in so early. we were rewarded for that. everybody understands sports right now. >> is the sweet spot of media. it is almost the only calls that you have to watch live. that has increase is value. everybody is seeing that now whether they be social media sites that are partnering with us to tweeting about sports marshall sports as we have. other networks, other cable networks, the leak -- everybody understands. >> more of what is happening in the cable industry from the cable show with leaders of two of the largest communication company's. the communicators on monday. andormer chair sheila bair

a roundtable talk about the state of the banking industry. they spoke at the network annual conference in washington. >> good afternoon. it has been almost five years since the start of the financial crisis in the near collapse of the banking system. i cannot imagine three people were qualified to discuss the progress we have made in fixing those problems. bair.an survival techniques and to the governor was the governor of minnesota and now is chairman and ceo of the roundtable were

you were percent banks and other financial interest. just to get started with you, do you inc. enough has been done to prevent a similar cataclysm from happening again? >> no, i do not. at the top of my list would be the proposal to strengthen capital reform and excessive leverage. driver ofost a key any financial crisis we have ever had. the rules themselves allow a lot of -- the fdic was fighting a lonely battle. the rules need to be fixed. in the fossil three came up with important fixes but they have 3t been implemented -- basel came up with important fixes but they have not been implemented yet.

there is far too much leverage. with caps on progress with the stress test. -- we have had progress with the stress test. this is one important thing we have not fixed. we are going backwards trying to fix the 2008 system. there's been a lot of progress. we may all agree on that. your first defense against a financial crisis is to reduce the probability, banks need to remain solvent. we are not there yet. >> would you think? could it happen again? are we better prepared? >> we are clearly better prepared. it we have another crisis? is probably when not if. whichs why the resolution sheila mentioned is so critical.

this was an issue on which she performed admirably. we have aspects of that authority to finish. we need firm international agreements to deal with the international banks. we need to clarify a number of the areas of the liquidation fund and self where a lot of ambiguity. we need to figure out how we are going to deal with a single point of interest which is methodology proposed to deal with the collapse of a major financial institution. we need every little regime behind it. >> i hear from banks that they feel that it has been overregulated. >> first of all, thank you for having us today. obviously, there is unfinished business as much as dodd frank implemented.

basel three is not yet implemented. wefar as overregulation, are not calling for the repeal of dodd frank. we want it to be implemented in a way that is practical and usable and does not go so far as to suffocate. likexample, simple things carbonization between regulatory agencies. there was a rule by the protection bureau -- qualified mortgages if you meet the objective criteria which is a good thing, we want more rigorous underwriting, you will have a legal safe harbor against regarding suitability to repay. the just of department my say you met the qualified -- the department of justice might say you met the qualified criteria on it might have disparagement

on certain protected groups. it might be discrimination. there are dozens of examples. dodd-frank said the fcc should promulgate a rule between broker-dealers and advisers and extending that to roll. in the meantime, the labor arertment and the fcc competing over who should or whether there should be an extension of the fiduciary role. you look at that and say at this ridiculous. get harmonize. that is what we have to deal with. --must talk about dodd-frank let's talk about dodd-frank. only 40% has been implemented. why is that? >> there are a number of reasons. .ndustry lobbying is part of it i have been long enough to remember a time when industry

leaders used to work more collaborative knowledge reform. it may not be her fate, but we need them. we are not seeing the that constructive dialogue at this point. processa negotiated among the regulators. we have a lot of regulators. we probably could have fewer than we have now. the regulators themselves, there is some accountability. people are looking for exceptions and nuances to accommodate the business they are doing. i wish the industry would have a more constructive tone. we needed the certainty. we need to move on. we have a new challenges. with no market money funds are a problem. we know there are will's out there pending. let's get them done and move on. there is going to be another crisis. we should be looking ahead and not to the past.

the banks pushing back to much? >> we want certainty. what markets do not like is uncertainty. you would like to know what the rules of the road are. we embrace the notion that dodd- frank was needed and important. it should be done quicker, better, and faster. they have big consequences. for our part, i cannot speak to the industry, for the roundtable we help the rules do get implemented in a rapid fashion. >> the banks in the middle of all of this? >> i would agree that there is a lack of dialogue between the industry and the government authorities. we can maybe disagree on the to the fault of both

sides. there is simply not the dialogue. i agree 100%. it is lacking. that is a problem. i think the other problem in fairness is that dodd-frank is a massive keys of legislation. a very complicated. often ill drafted. we are asking regulatory agencies to do this without any additional resources. they have their day jobs. that explains a large part of the delay. >> i would agree with that. after go through appropriation share. less of a problem for bank regulators. part to look at as to try to get independent funding for both the sec. the have the resources they need. is the technology system.

it is increasingly large and complex market. >> we spoke about the problems, you mentioned part of the complexity is because banks have asked for a exemption. >> that has been part of the problem. i do wish the initial leadership when it knowledge the need to finalize these rules. and we will not like all of the rules. they should not like all the rows. there should be a different of use. regulators shall listen to the industry and understand our perspective and consequences. they have a public interest mandate to finalize the rules that is consistent. i do not hear that comic from industry. i hear they want to the rules done if it is the rules they like. if not, they will keep fighting them. >> let's talk about too big to fail. the collapse of lehman's. if something was to happen with jpmorgan and if you were to

follow in a spiral, could we do a government intervention this time? to have enough safeguards that a could beig as that rescued? >> there needs to be government intervention with title ii of dodd frank. , the ban of taxpayer bailouts. fdic as nate allowable strategy. -- a liable strategy. most of these large financial organizations are just that. thousands of entities. we need them. they are intertwined. can support multiple business functions. given the complexity of their structures, it will be difficult to break them up.

by taking control of the holding company and putting that into ,eceivership, all of the equity the government is owner to continue to get to this restructured and healthy again. would it be easy to do? absolutely not. it can be operationalized. if they had to be. that's not to say it cannot work a lot better. we need larger capital cushions and requirements to make sure there is lots of loss absorption. and we need a better resolution plants and simplification of legal structures to make it more smoothly. mechanismthere is a that can be used now to protect taxpayers which is where it should be. >> governor?

>> i would certainly agree. title ii has gone a long way and the resolution plan of living wills is a fundamental aspect of that. one of the real problems in 2008 was there was no break the glass in case of fire situation. there were no plans. now there are plans area there is a system in place. the potential for resolving even a jpmorgan chase is higher than it was almost five years ago. >> i would add if you look at the leading regulators ,ncluding chairman bernanke they have said look, dodd-frank addresses too big to fail. let's get implemented. more needs to be done. we will do more. they said they have the current authority to do more.

those are three of the leading regulators and the space. we know a lot of about these issues. more should be done and they will do it. >> it is critical to distinguish between 2 very different objectives. one is to end too big to fail. one is to and too big. we can have a political debate about whether big banks are bad for a democratic society. those who support that should be fourth -- forthright as opposed to hiding behind too big to fail. >> i am glad you raised that. -- the fed fact has has expressed concern about things being too big. >> it is also important to distinguish between too big to fail at having a viable resolution mechanism.

[indiscernible] so the taxpayers would not step in again. that is an important distinction. , thewe have the authority market power and political influence or whenever, there is a need to downsize. to have the to have mark in place. the markets are going to downsize them was the bondholders understand there is no more foot of the government. i am hoping that over time of market will drive that. it is very difficult for the government to originally save -- arbitrarily say -- >> one of the complaints about banks is there is not enough lending in the economy. it is not giving out loans. that process has not restarted to a sufficient degree. thanks complaint about hedge

funds and how -- banks complain about hedge funds and how they are regulated. >> a couple of things. the data, the statistics. lending has not regrown or is not accelerating. number two is banks and other lenders are put in the position of getting pressured by regulators and overseers to see -- to say make responsible loans. on the other hand, you have people in the political arena saying make more loans. one way to make more loans is to loosen your underwriting standards which we have to be very careful about. it will lead back to the path we were talking about. too much leverage and too much speculation. lastly, i would say in the non- bank space, the alternative banking industry, expanding rapidly. it will be incomplete to talk about lending without looking at

the whole space. if you look at the whole space, easy rapid expansion. , lightlyarts of that regulated are not regulated at all. i could tell by the grittiest of a bubble. -- the ingredients of a bubble. speculation. those characteristics in some parts of the new lending space. >> do you share concerns? >> i do worry. fors completely appropriate lightly regulated investment vehicles like hedge funds to operate. they have an important economic function. want to make sure it does not come back and bite the regulation sector. they do have access to the discount window. there are certain safety nets we provide them.

it is justifies greater regulation. i agree with the governor. we cannot just regulate banks and ignore everybody else. we did that heart of the crisis and that did not work out so well. there needs to be careful monitoring at the intersection. they can easily fell on their own without hurting the rest of us. what title i is all about is to get the regulators to london to thet -- to identify interconnectedness where do not have to cross a broader disruption of the market. >> many of the factors leading up were not banks. included long-term capital. the permits and that everybody -- the permits that everybody has one of the house without consequences. >> is it legitimate to say hedge

funds and others have an unfair advantage over banks? >>te they are differently -- they are differently structured. it remains to be seen whether that hedge funds and the role they play primarily today that they the that type of regulation. if they reach the point where facing stability, that is what title i is supposed to do as sheila mentioned. likeis critical because the point him made, lending standards have tightened -ignificantly since the 2004 two thousand seven period. that is a good thing. that is not bad. it would have alternative with lowerng out standards, there are one of two results. the banks will follow them as

they did in the last decade. for those lenders will grab market share. neither is a good result. >> the figure you told me earlier, half of the loans from nontraditional. >> i need to confirm that. i was told by a credible source. half of the lending has been non-bank lending and includes the alternative operations of some established banks. >> i would like to talk about interest rates and the climate has come up repeatedly today. were all getting ready for some changes. how seriously should we take the interest rate as it applies to banks? >> we should take it very seriously. we are in uncharted territory here. it does not take much of a bump.

the longer this is going on, other types of financial institutions. it is going to be a rocky road. i support the fed. to start unwinding. get ahead of this before is a potential problem. it is going to be rocky. it is going to take a lot of independence. and interest rate movement -- one key problem is the proposal to change the capital. this is smaller banks where the capital would swing depending on changes in interest rate even on the highest grade of security like the u.s. government which is something that needs to be looked at very carefully before adopting. >> we are out of time for segment. that is a good point. tomorrow is a big day.

>> one last question before we go to the audience. you said you are hearing from a lot of your clients about google and facebook and the appeal of technology. do we believe that tech companies will take him many of the roles of the traditional banks? >> i am not sure if they will take on in a traditional sense. the markets is morphing rapidly. there is no going back. cannot put the horse to back in the barn. , youu're younger than 50 do much for your business on a mobile device. the interface is not just with banks when it comes to e- commerce payments. backed upogle wallet by credit cards or the walmart experience is similar. it does not take a great person to imagine a world where various --ities can store of value

to store value digitally. who is going to be in that space? is it going to look like a regulated entity? or backroom operations? or you can make up your own digital value? you can create lots of scenarios where value is stored and transferred and recognized digitally and does not like the current structure. >> we would like to open it up. you can send questions through your ipad. cfo of wells fargo? [laughter] the first question since have a direct stake in this conversation.

>> my question is -- [indiscernible] the risks andat the system today notwithstanding the rules and processes, what are the top two that you worried the most about? >> i worked about interest and risk. cybersecurity is a real issue. it is not stable. we should not ignore the obvious. market was overheated. we were ignorant obvious. and interest rates. the bond market is very inflated. out.ed to get it will be difficult. it needs to be controlled.

>> from my perspective, i would as an axisecurity existential risk. on the sweetheart in our system, ystem,ess we harden our senat it'll be a serious problem. the second is reputational risk. the reputation of banks could really create a very serious problem. >> i would concur. which doeshink tank just that, rapidly emergency concerns. i embrace all of that.

there are a lot of big concerns. one longer-term is to what extent as financial services and the future going to look like a regulated utility? is it still going to preserve the flexibility and innovation creativity and made it the best financial service in the world? if you go so far with regulatory framework that the differentiation between products is not substantive, there is really no real differentiation between the mechanics a quantitative aspects and you wander into you have ald, different constellation. you have a different business model and perhaps you begin to change the trajectory. you do not want to house the wild west.

finding that proper balancing point between those two is important. the possibility of drifting so far toward a utility model that begins to drain some of the creativity and innovation of the space of the industry that may not be helpful long-term in a readily changing world with technological innovation. >> any other questions? >> we have time for one question. how concerned should we be about the safety and soundness of small community banks which are been hurt and is low interest environment? if it's what i will pinpoint. their viability as someday i will focus on. it is helpful. i grow up in a small town in kansas. not big enough for a branch. we have one now.

you need a smaller banks to serve that kind of community. andeed different approaches regulations. it is much different from a jpmorgan chase. it's an interesting environment. between regulatory changes and monetary policies, they are being squeezed. >> i would fully agree just because even a large number of banks failing would not have an impact on the overall economy. the impact on the local communities is tremendous. when you lose the small banks, you lose your community leaders. which makesmuch hole.own a whole -- >> i want to concur.

we need all sized banks. small and community banks play an important role for all the reasons just mentioned. you see the industry including small andhat support community banks. there is broad-based support for community-based bank relief. >> a very radical thought. basel three implemented. pick banks, everybody below. >> i would like to thank our panel. [applause] david cameron takes questions from members. cybersecurity with homeland security secretary janet

napolitano. q&a.er chance to see >> a he has been called " probably the most intellectual of the obama era." what does that mean? >> i wonder by whom.