i do not know the naacp was funding political candidates secretly in alabama or in some way launnering its funds to prevent people from knowinn thaa. i don't know how applicable that analogy is. >> i think it is an interesting question that the court has not quite gotten to, the issue of harassment and the issue of disclossre for harassment. it seems like that is a coming theme, but they hav not wressled to the ground yet. >> thank you. one of the more interesting opinions i saw, interesting because it was so unusually hard to decipher, was in the case of the juvenile justice parole case. chief justice roberts wrote a separate opinion. he did not join the majority in its reasing, where he basically said this may or may not be unconstitutional, depending on the circumstances. it was a real mishmash to me, logically, trying to figure out what circumstances would or would not apply in terms of his few of when life without parole for a juvenile offender would or would not be allowed. i'm going to ask someone to talk about his opinion in this case, not just for what it says about this cse but what it says since his opinion was not dispositive because kennedy's was. what it says about hissapproach a overall too brigh line rules continually come back to the courts again and again where the judges or justices and up splitting hairs on does that make sense? >> up wh a very interesting decision also because if you come down to it, he thought some crimes sounded really horrible and so the person should stay in jail for the rest of their lives somewhere not so bad so they should get a crack at getting help of jail. i thought it was especially interesttng on his dissent were he was -- he had a list of 40 qqestions that a judge would have to go through that this decision raised because the was no real rule and he thought it was a terrible idea. he thought was going to raise all sorts of the implications -- during the oral argument, that was his line of questioning -- shouldn't will be that the judge has to somehow certified he has taken into account the juvenile 's age in making the decision to justify this in some way. that is what he and the up writing. >> this was a case from florida which has approximately 150 juvenile or so sentenced to life without parole for crimes that are not homicide crimes. most of them are in florida for pome reason. in this case, it was a 16-year- old robert -- a 16-year-old robber who ended up with a life without parole sentence. this was the case the court acted upon. is it flat out unconitutionall to impose such a harsh sentence? it is true theemajority opinion by justice kennedy took what we can look at as the traditional way t court has handled these ses involving the eighth amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. is it cruel or unusual as measured against the evolving standards of decency that marked the prague -- mark the progress of a security -- mark the progress of a maturing society? the majority held that it did, using its methods of counting how many states impose these sorts of penalties and with the trend line is and so forth. the most interesting opinion was, because also unexpected, in its reasoning even if it s telegraphed after oral argument, was from chief justice roberts who wrote the concurring opinion who said it was too hard for this one guy but maybe it's not too hard in the general to impose life without parole. the broader aspect that it raises and this is what i think is interesting is that the court has not lloked to what they call proportionality in eighth amendment cases. it has not look to the terms of years, how many years someone is sentenced and measured that against the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment except in the rest of instances. as a result, you have decisions upholding the three strikes you're out cas where the third strike might be someone stealing a few videotapes or a slice of extraordinarily harsh sentence. the court does not want to get into the role of second-guessing legislatures on how many years is cruel and how many years is just shy of kroll and how many years is unusual and how maay are not that unusual. the chief justi's opinion suggested that maybe there is room for the court to be making those kinds of evaluation for coming up with some method for lower court judges to begin looking at that kind of proportionality estimate in deciding whether a term of years as cruel. until now, as only looked at whether death is disproportionate to the crime, 100 years or 10 years is proportionate to the crime. >> picking up off the last point since we only have a couple of minutes left, i'm going to reclaim the moderator's prerogative and sees the last question for melf because i couldn't let you leave the panel without forcing you to put on your prognosticators have to see -- prognosticators hat to see if to change when justice is to change the entire supreme court. what issit you might foresee that might change with the departure of justice stevens an+ the addition of potential justice ellen occasion? what clues might we have gotten from the hearings? . . there was a lot of talk that social -- sotomayor, because of her back as a prosecutor, would be tougher on criminal defendants then perhaps souter was. i do not think we saw any evidence of that at all during this term, and we throw in the usual disclaimer that the first year does not mean you can predict that, but i do not think we saw that anywhere. as far as how the court changes it changes a lot.tevens, i sink- he really was the leader of that side othe justices, and it is sort o inside baseball to a great extent, but who gets to a sign the opinions that are risen -- written? -- i think it changes the dynamic of the conference, what some people have talked about an order in whh the justices speak and lay out the cases, so exactly how to changes i think depends a lot on e cases they take, but i certainly think it is a big change. >> i will -- because of the convenient scheduling of the confirmation hearings to the conflict with e last date of the supreme court term, i missed the first two days because i was covering what the cour decided, so i cannot say i know everything that elena kagan said during a hearing, but two things that i did note are perhaps was watching r the future. one was that she was more pointed than i would have expected in criticizing the congruence of proportionality test of justice kennedy. this is one of thess terms that the court sometimes invent, and it goes with when congress exercise is one of a specified powers under the constitution -- say, to protect their right to vote or ptect due process of citizens or what have you under the 14th amendment or the 15th amendment -- the congress can only exercise powers that the3 proportional to the enumerated powees, basically meaning congress cannot do whatever it wants. it can only do what justice kennedy, if he is in the majority and the chief justice not, should -- things they shoold do. i think it will be interesting to see how she addresses some of those enumerated powers cases when congress is alleged to have gone beyond a specific grant. that may come up when we see the voting rights act challee in the future, which i'm sure it will be. for the short term, i think the most interesting case to watch likely justice kagan in is the case of snyder versus phelps, involving the west grove baptist church, a church that expresses its phase by picketing funerals of fallen service members with bogor placards -- vulgar to america tolerance of gayath rights, basically, and posting online the vicious attacks on the parents of the debt service members. the fourth circuit court found that the chch had a right to do that, and that is now on appeal to t supreme court elena kagan at several points during the confirmation hearing criticized at one point or when the supreme court created a very high standard for libel sus by public figures. she said at several points that she thought perhaps that standard was too high. it was that case which informed the fourth circuit decision in snyder versus phelps, so i think it would be interestg to see what her interest is in speech and press cas and how she aws the balance in the future and whether she draws it in a different place than justice stevens might have. you take that intoccount as in citizens united, which for st of the court was clearly a first amendment case, but also the u.s. versus stevens case, the animal cruelty videos where the breeze that the united states filed took a very broad view of congressional power to suppress speech if congress felt that its social value was negated by ts social cost, a position that was really not necessary to defend thetatute. that sentence was called out by the chief justice, joined by being in open court startling and dangerous." again, we do not know if she wrote that sentence and we do not know how clearly it reflects her own views, but it is not consistent with the position she has taken on speech issues in the past. p- being "sttling and dangerous." it will be interesting to see whether her views are ll for told by what she said at the hearing. >> all right, which is that, please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] -- with that, please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] and thank you for attending. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next on c-span, this week's prime minister's questions from the british house of commons. from the white house, the president talks about efforts to promote u.s. exports. and later, our interview with the research director for the center for immigration studies. >> before the senate judiciary committee votes up or down, watch the entire confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee elena kagan online at video library.n to purchase a copy of the hearing, click the " buy now" button. >> watch coverage on the c-span at work and learn more about the nation's highest court in c- span's latest book "the supreme court -- candid conversations with all the justices," available in hardcover and as an e-book. >> in this week's question time, david cameron talked about afghanistan, somalia, and domestic violence. this is half an hour. >> for questions to the prime minister -- alan michael. >> as the house will be aware, today is the fifth anniversary of the 7 july terrorist attacks on central london. i am sure that everyone in the house and people in the country will remember where they were, and what they were doing, when that dreadful news came through. our hearts should go out to the families and friends of those who died. they will never be forgotten. our thoughts are also with those who were injured, physically and mentally, by the dreadful events of that day. it was a dreadful day, but it was also a day that will remain -- i believe -- a symbol of the enduring bravery of the british people. this morning, i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. in addition to my duties in the house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> will the prime minister join me in congratulating the people of somaliland on the successful, peaceful and transparent election of a new president? as the somaliland republic has now been a beacon of democracy in africa for nearly 20 years, will the prime minister ensure that the uk keeps its promise to increase engagement with a new government with democratic credentials? >> the right honorable gentleman is right to raise this important issue concerning an area of the world of enormous importance for our own security. i join him in welcoming the peaceful and credible elections in somaliland. they are an example of genuine democracy in an area of the world not noted for it. the uk provided funding for election supervision, and we are keen to engage with the new government. i believe, and i am sure the whole house would agree, that the key is to prevent terrorist groups from establishing a foothold in somaliland, as they have done in somalia. that is vital, and, yes, the government will continue to engage. >> the prime minister will not be surprised to hear that i intend to continue campaigning to keep the hercules fleet at raf lyneham in my constituency as long as i can. however, if, at the end of the day, it moves to brize norton in his constituency, and takes with it the jobs and economic prosperity that go with it, will he at least use all his good offices to ensure that we find some way of bringing jobs and economic prosperity back into the vacated site at lyneham? >> my honorable friend has fought a long and noble campaign on this issue, and has made very strong arguments -- i know how strong they are, because every time i get into a hercules, whether in afghanistan or elsewhere, the pilots always immediately complain about having to move from his constituency to mine. he makes a good point about economic development, and we will ensure that, if this goes ahead, we will see good, strong economic development in his constituency. >> i support what the prime minister has said on the fifth anniversary of the terrible 7/7 bombings. today we remember those who were killed and injured, and their families and friends. we pay tribute to the emergency services, which responded with such care and such courage, and we stand with the government in our determination to defeat those who would bring terror to our streets. there has been a lot of progress on tackling domestic violence, but still every year hundreds of thousands of women are victims of it. many of the perpetrators are sent to prison -- rightly, in my view -- but now the justice secretary has embarked on a sentencing review, and has suggested that short sentences do not work. however, often what is needed in domestic violence cases is not rehabilitation, but a clear message to the perpetrator that it must not be repeated, and a clear message to the victim that the justice system takes this seriously. that is what a short sentence can do. will the prime minister confirm that the sentencing review will not stop magistrates giving short prison sentences for domestic violence? >> first, i thank the right honorable and learned lady for what she said about the anniversary and the tribute that she rightly paid to the emergency services, which played an unbelievably brilliant role on that day, and to the many people who helped them. the right honorable and learned lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of domestic violence. for too many years it was an issue that police forces and prosecutors did not deal with properly, and to be fair to the last government, good progress has been made over the past decade. i agree that there are occasions when short sentences are required, and indeed the lord chancellor takes exactly the same view. he said in the speech -- it is very important to read the speech, not just the headline. he said -- "in my opinion, abolishing all short-term sentences altogetherwould be a step too far. we need penalties for the anti- social recidivist." we need to ensure that magistrates have that power, but the review is important to try to ensure that we get this right. >> i thank the prime minister for that reassurance. it is reassuring that the promise that the liberal democrats' made at the election is not going to be carried forward. i notice that the justice secretary is not looking very cheerful -- perhaps he should go down to ronnie scott's to cheer himself up. may i congratulate the prime minister on, instead of listening to his new partner, listening to his mother? in the election he told us that his mother was a magistrate and that she told him that magistrates needed the power of short sentences. quite often, it is the right thing for somebody not to listen to their new partner but to listen to their mother, so i am glad that he has done that on this occasion. i turn to something else mentioned in the election campaign. the prime minister said that any minister who comes to him with cuts to front-line services "will be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again." does that apply to the home secretary? >> first, may i say that in my experience there are very few people more cheerful than the lord chancellor. he is celebrating his 40th anniversary in this house, and he likes to point out that he was elected before the chancellor of the exchequer was born. he brings enormous experience and good humour to all our counsels. i am delighted that the right honorable and learned lady has brought up the issue of my mother, who served on the newbury bench for many, many years. i have to say that one of the biggest challenges she had -- as well as me, one of the biggest challenges that she had, and one of the reasons why she needed to hand out so many short sentences, was badly behaved cnd protestors outside greenham common. i do not know whether the right honorable and learned lady was there. anyway, if she wants to have more episodes of "listen with mother", i am very happy for that at any time she would like. on the home office, of course we have to make savings. we have to make savings across government. it is not going to be easy, but absolutely we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect the front line. however, i simply do not believe that when we look at the home office budget there are not examples of waste and inefficiency and things that we can do better. the right honorable and learned lady went into the election calling for 20% cuts in every department. that was her policy -- a policy of 5% cuts each year. ours is 6% cuts each year, so these are labour cuts as well. >> we went into the election very clear about protecting police numbers. i am asking the prime minister a straightforward question, which he has so far failed to answer. at prime minister's questions, he was asked by my honorable friend the member for westminster north this very simple, straightforward question -- "will there be fewer police officers at the end of this parliament" -- compared with now? he skirted around her question and did not answer it. will he answer it now? >> of course there will be difficult decisions, but let me -- a simple question was put to the shadow home secretary before the last election. wait for it -- >> can you guarantee if you formthe next government that police numbers won't fall? alan johnson: "no." >> but my right honorable friend the member for kingston upon hull west and hessle went on to say -- i think that that was selective quoting -- that we would guarantee the funding that would ensure police numbers and the numbers of police community support officers. we were absolutely clear about that. the prime minister's lib dem partners said that they would have 3,000 more police officers on the beat, while he said that he would protect front-line services. is either of those promises going to be kept? people who are concerned about crime want to know. >> there is nothing selective about the word no. that is what the shadow home secretary said when he was asked whether he could guarantee that there would be no cuts in police numbers. let us remember why we are here. we have a £155 billion budget deficit. the labour party went into the last election promising 50% cuts in capital spending and 20% cuts in departmental spending. we are clearing up the mess that labour made. i sat at the g20 table last weekend and, looking round the table, thought, "who's got the biggest budget deficit? is it brazil? no. is it spain? no. is it argentina? no." labour left us in a situation where we get lectured by argentina on the state of our budget deficit. >> if the right honorable gentleman had read the office for budget responsibility report, he would have seen that its forecast for government borrowing was lower than the forecast that we made before the election -- if he had read it, he would probably also have found that the chair would not have resigned immediately after being appointed. is it not clear that these are the government's crime policies -- that the right honorable gentleman is threatening to take away the police officers people want on the beat, cutting down the right of local residents to cctv and making it harder for the police to use dna evidence? those are his policies. let me ask him a straightforward question -- does he think that those policies are more likely to make crime go down or go up? >> the point is that under the last government violent crime and gun crime went through the roof. the right honorable and -- they almost doubled. the shadow foreign secretary is waving his head. i think it is time for hon. members -- there is going to be our rush of new labor memoirs coming out. they should start with a report of a spin doctor who worked for the last prime minister. we will not bother with that now. >> order. i am very clear what is in order. that is the end of the matter. >> thank you, mr. speaker. before the election, from the conservatives, it was about tougher policies and more police. not all that seems to have gone off. we were very clear. when we first thing -- came into government, we said we would bring crime down, and we did. will he promise that under his government, he will keep crime coming down? will he make that promise, if he will not, it is only because he knows, as we all know, his policies will put crime up. >> mr. speaker, i was only trying to boost sales. i can promise the hon. lady one thing -- i will not be wandering around my constituency and as oof vest. gun crime went up, a violent crime went up. rian fender -- we offenders went up. -- reoffenders went up. that is the record that we inherited. . . are on drugs and 40% of them commit a crime on the way out. that's their record and that's what we'll be cleaning up. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the late report from the u.s. department of dense to congress highlighted the speed and propaganda in afghanistan as a key threat to allied forces. what can coalition do to counter this we have to demonstrate the progress we're making in turntes of spreading security and governments across afghanistan, protective early in our case, southern afghanistan. we will be publishing a monthly update and quarterly statements and we make sure we keep the british public informed along with the decisions we take in this conflict. >> the conservative party claim to be the party that would support small businesses. their first budget, they canceled [unintelligible] can the prime minister tell me and hundreds of employees and students who studied at university why the chancellor feels [unintelligible] >> we belive in low -- believe in low tax rates. we cut down to 20 p from 22 p and got the tax down to 24% which will give us the lowest tax rate in the g-8 or the g- 20. >> how can i reassure my constituents about the planning system? my local council turned down massive developments such as the mega depot only to find them overturned. they never even visited the site. how can we greengage local people in these decisions? >> i want to reassure my friend that it is right that local authorities should be taking decisions that affect people and they should be taken up locally as possible. we are scrapping the target and the bureaucracy we inherited from the party opposite. cents the election, we have scrapped the area assessments. regional assemblies, gone. home information packed gone, and labour's tax gone. >> if the respect agenda is to mean anything, surely it should include proper consultation which would involve legislatures on fundamental constitution and political reform. all parts of the u.k. will affect the composition. will the prime minister undertake urgently to enter into discussions with the representatives of the administration's and revise their proposals in light of what they have to say? that is not the proper respect. >> of course these discussions need to take place in the well. -- they will. i listened carefully to my friend's statement. the date and nature of the referendum is the westminster parliament issue. that is -- does not make sense to take it in front of other parliaments and other assemblies. that is the way to do it. let me say that members should not shout at the prime minister in that way. it is rude. secondly, it delays the progress and we must not have it. >> [unintelligible] to ensuring justice for policy owners. >> i can give my friend the reassurance. we're committed to a bill in the session. in to assassinate the parliamentary ombudsman referred to a decade of regulatory -- we are waiting for this, and the last government were waiting so that more of the polim were dyig off. >> i joined with a community to welcome home sgt. jamison. he lost both legs and his left arm. the most humbling aspects was his [unintelligible] he supports the mission and believes the british forces there are making a difference. manna ask the prime minister to join with me and will he agree with me that we're spending [unintelligible] and those who have suffered the most grievous injuries. >> i join the hon. gentleman in paying and those who have served and those who have met with soldiers who have left limbs in combat. you cannot help being incredibly impressed by the spirit and the bravery and determination of these people to go on and live as full lives as possible. we set out clearly what we wanted to achieve. this is the key year when we surge up the military forces and the political pressure. how we do that best and make sure our forces are properly spread across helmand province so we can have the effect we want. do we think we should be there in a combat role or in significant numbers in five years' time? i do not. this is the time to get the job done in the plan to make sure we would not be in afghanistan in 2015. we have been there already for for five years in helmand. it is time to maximize the pressure and bring our forces, as we train the afghan army and police force to do the job that needs to be done which is to keep the country secure. that is our goal and in our national security interests. >> thank you. some suffered greatly from the actions of some. threats, intimidation, neglect. would the prime minister meet a delegation and myself so we could discuss how they may be better protected? >> i have every sympathy with them. i suspect many have had occasion when you have problems with homeowners who have been badly treated by disreputable park owners. we all those those cases. people [unintelligible] it is not right and not fair. the housing minister -- it is best if she would meet with him in order to make sure we have robust rules and the right approach to make sure that homeowners have their rights respected. >> on friday, my constituent was murdered. he was just 15. the thoughts are with his family at this time. he is the 13th teenager to lose their lives needlessly in our capital city. can the prime minister tell me and the rest of the house and the country what his government is doing and will be doing going forward to stop this happening in our community? >> the hon. gentleman is absolutely right to raise this case which everyone will have read about. it is terrific and it seems so planned and premeditated. it is appalling to think that things happen on our streets. i think there are short-term measures we need and longer-term measures as well. in terms of the sentencing, we do need to have the strongest possible signal about how carrying a knife on our streets is unacceptable. we need to send out a signal that it is not a defensive measure. it is not cool. ituldt happen and the punishment will be tough. the longer term measure is we have got to do more to strengthen communities and strengthen families to give people an alternative to the gangs that they are drawn toward. to many young people joined a gang because they do not have other networks and respect and hope. that is a long-term agenda. it is an agenda shared on both sides and we must pursue it. >> can you give assurance that [unintelligible] we will not see the plans before they are presented. >> the u.k. budget should be shown. i am pleased to report that a number of bodies have already recognized it is a good budget. it will help put this country back on track. >> can the prime minister give the house of clear pledge on child poverty? will there be fewer children living in relative poverty by the end of this parliament? yes or no? >> we are committed to meeting the child poverty target. this budget, in spite of its difficulties, does not add a single family to child poverty. we're in contrast, -- in contrast, the last government put up child poverty. they shake their heads. check their figures and have a look. >> will my friend give assurance that all new academies will be obliged to accept children with special educational needs? >> i give my hon. friend that assurance. academies will be required to ensure that pupils are on the -- admitted on the same basis. children -- will make sure they get the help and support they need. >> the chief executive [unintelligible] was presented with a lifetime achievement award. various members have made personal unwarranted attacks on him in the media. will the prime minister apologized now for these unjustified attacks made on a highly regarded businessman? >> i am sorelsorry. no one has made an attack. it is an excellent company and an excellent business. the question is, is it an appropriate use of taxpayer money to give money to a business that could have raised that money by diluting its shareholding? the party opposite does not understand. they go around handing out money before the election without asking, is a valuable money? no wonder it is a mess. >> thank you. the u.k. has a splendid reputation for the quality of its agricultural, science, and research. will the prime minister confirm that government and eu policy decisions will be taken on the basis of science and proportionate regulation? >> the member is a member of the group on science and technology. these are difficult issues. we should be guided by the signs and what consumers want. it is vital we have accurate labor. that is the key te sure we make progress with this issue in a way that keeps the public onside and allows them to understand what it is they are buying in consuming. public onsite and allows them to understand what it is they're buying and consuming. >> david anderson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the who house will be aware and concerned about the ongoing incident in the northeast. the killer of chris brown took place in my town of berkley and our thoughts and prayers suld go with their families and friends and david rathbun and his family. and where we are with this issue can he assure us all lessons should be learned from this incident and look again in getting guns off the street. >> the right honorable gentleman isight of this and the whole gun of those who have lost their lives and injured. it is a horrific case. i don't think it's right now to start talking about the process of learning any lessons. this is an ongoing case. the home secretary has been briefed by the chief constable and i know the whole house and the whole country will be wishing the police well in their search for this individuaso that we can put a stop to the horrendous spree that's taking place. >> thank you, mr. speaker. voting by nonresident second homeowners in regions is becoming a contentious issues. councils are not checking in the local elections and some are worried results may be skewed. will the prime minister meet with me or in the one of his ministerial counsel to discuss this issue. >> it is important we make sure electoral registers is accurate. it is an offense to vote in an general election in two different places. i have to say there are problems, i think, in saying whether or not second homeowners can vote. i think a number of honorable members might take a dim vote because some might not be able to vote in his constituencies but i'll be happy to have a meeting for the member responsible for electoral reform. >> number 10, mr. speaker. >> can i first of all welcome the right honorable lady to the house. and the honorable members constituency and it's cometely unacceptable today that 58% of the housing in her constituency is not of a decent standard. we do have a huge backlog of work to be carried out. we've plowed 170 million pounds back in socia housing schemes this financial year which the last government promised but didn't fund. clearly the decent homes program will have to be looked at in the spending review but i understand the force of argument in her constituency particularly. >> thank you, prime minister. is the prime minister aware that some 7,000 counsel homes need to be broht up in the home standards. the last government committed 22 million towards addressing this problem. will his government honor that commitment to my constituents? >> as i said we've actually filled in some of the black hole left by the last government because promise of extra spending was made but the money wasn't found. and while we made the 6 billion pounds of cuts to start sorting out the finances we used some of the saved money to fill in the black holes so that social housing schemes could go ahead. clearly the decent homes program is important. we he tongue it's value for money but her constituency has very great needs with so many substandard needs. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my 9-year-old constituent says she and her brother learned to swim because it was free. paisley is worried her little sister won't be able to learn because this government wants to charge in her letter paisley says please, please stop this madness. will the primeinister listen to paisley and have a rethink? >> well, first of all, can i congratulate the honorable lady and many people in this country think it's a good time to go into the politics and go media and can i congratulate the wath of the g mtv sofa to come onto a green bench here. she raises an important case. i have to say to her that not all labour councils were able to deliver the free swimming pledge and this is one of the things like many other things i'm afraid it's not always going to be possible to guarantee in the incredibly straight times when we live in >> from the white house, president obama talks about efforts to promote u.s. exports. an interview with the research director from the center for immigration studies. the hearing about mismanagement of arlington national cemetery. >> the senate judiciary committee returns to vote on the nomination of elena kagan. watch coverage on the c-span network and learn more about the nation's highest court in the latest book. providing unique inside about the court. available in hardcover and as an e-book. >> c-span is available in 100 million homes. bringing you a direct link to. >> president obama talked about efforts to promote exports and progress on his campaign promise to double exports. >> good afterroon. thank you for joining us. >> good afternoon. we concluded meetings on the export council. we had a candid discussion about the strategy is to meet the imperative of selling u.s. goods and services and how we can strengthen the impact of president obama's national export initiative. after a decade in which america's economy relied too much on and increasingly hard- pressed consumer for growth. president obama understands we need to get back to the basics. we must reinvest in innovation and do a better job of connecting u.s. companies to the 95% of the world's consumers who live outside the borders of the u.s. in line that is where the national export initiative comes in. it is a government wide effort to redouble exports by 2015. the goal is to double exports by 2015. it was designed with one overriding goal. to put americans back to work. over one in three manufacturing jobs and one in five agricultural jobs are tied to exports. these are good jobs that provide good wages. the type of jobs we need a lot more of. export goals are on track. exports rose 17% from the same time a year before. over low last nine months, exports have becomcontributed to economic growth. credit goes to companies that provide the best products and saw after services in the world. the government has mobilized to improve our advocacy on behalf of u.s. companies. at the same time, we are increasing access to credit, export credit and breaking down the trade barriers that prevent u.s. companies from operating on a level playing field. the commerce department has been involved with these efforts. i am eager to build on the momentum we have seen over the last several months. with that, i am going to turn things over. it is my pleasure to introduce president barack obama who is accompanied by the co-chair and ceo of boeing. ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. have a seat. thank you very much. please be seated. good morning. thank you for being here and thank you to members of my cabinet and my administration for coming. thank you for the introduction and the outstanding work you have been doing in congress. that work has been my driving focus since we walked through these doors a year-and-a-half ago. at that time, our economy was shrinking at an alarming rate. nearly 3 million jobs were lost in the last half of 2008. in january, 2009 alone, more than 750,000 jobs have been lost in the united states. every alarm bell was ringing at the prospect of a second great depression. our imperative was to stop that free-fall and reverse direction. to get our economy moving and get jobs growing again. which meant we took a series of dramatic and frankly, sometimes unpopular actions. as a result of those actions, we broke the recession's momentum and we're in a much different place today. our economy has grown for three consecutive quarters. a stark contrast to the 3.7 wheat lost over the first half of last year. -- we lost over the first half of last year. despite world's even events, w'e moving forward. our businesses are hiring again. there are five unemployed workers for each job opening. empty storefronts still haunt too many mean streets. the truth is the middle class families that are the backbone of our economy have felt their economic security eroding since long before this recession hit. we have got much more work to do to spur job grooth and keep the economy moving. the question is, over the months and years to come, how to win courage the strong and lasting economic growth required for america to lead in this new century? where are we going to find the growth to boost businesses and workers and improve our fiscal health and reducing our long term deficits? one thing we know is this growth will not come from an economy where prosperity is based on fleeting bubbles. of consumption, debt, you cannot rely on paper gains. we have seen where that led us and we're not oing back. the truth is, we have had to face of a the past year and a half -- over the past year and a half, if we want to approach full employment and fuel economic growth, we need to end the policies that got us here, tackle the challenges we have put off for decades, and move this economy forward. we need to lay a new and stronger foundation on which businesses can thrive and create jobs and rising incomes, on which innovators and entrepreneurs can lead the world in generating new technologies and products and services. we have to rely on a new foundation on which america can harness what has made our economy the engine and the envy of the world, the talent and drive and creativity of our people. so as business leaders and labor leaders representing some of america's largest corporations and america's workers, that is what i want to talk to you about today. because america's success all smugly depends on your success. it is the private sector that has always been the source of our job creation, our economic growth, and our prosperity. it is our businesses and workers who will take the reins of this recovery and lead us forward. same time, some might argue that government has no role to play it all in our economy. but everybody in this room understands that the free market depends on a governmenn that sets clear rules that insure fair and honest competition, that lives within its means, that invests in certain things that the private sector cannot invest on its own. in the absence of this kind of responsible government, whenever government is dragged to 421 and or the other of the spectrum -- dragged too far to one end or the other of the spectrum, we see negative consequences. too much regulation can hurt business and families. a government that does too little can be just as irresponsible as the government that does too much. because, for example, in the absence of sound oversight, responsible businesses are forced to compete against unscrupulous and underhanded businesses who are unencumbered by any restrictions on activities that might harm the environment, or take advantage of middle-class families, or th that is bad for everybody. that is the reason we pursued wall street reforms. and when the senate takes up its business again, i hope them -- a move as quickly as possible to finish this chapter and settle this issue. in the absence of sensible policies that invest in long- term public goods like education or basic research, roads, railways, broadband, a smart electric grid, an absence of those investments can be equally disastrous. . investments slowly degrades our competitiveness, leaving us without the skilled work force for the technologies or the basic infrastructure that a 21st century economy requires. so to make sure our workers can out compete anybody, anywhere in the world, we have iivested in the skills and education in -- of our people. through the race to the top, we are challenging our schools to raise their standards. i have pledged that by 20/20, america will lead the world in the percentage of students graduating from college, and by making higher education more affordabll, we're on our way to achieving that goal. to strengthen our standing in a 21st century economy, we have invested in upgrading our critical we've enacted reforms that will reduce the drag of health care costs on businesses and consumers alike. and we are committed to bringing down the unsustainable debt that has ballooned over the past 10 years. to spur lasting growth, we've invested in science and technology, research and development, and clean energy projects that will strengthen our global leadership. 18 months ago, for example, american companies commanded just 2% of the global capacity for advanced battery technology. today, the seed money we provided has helped leverage substantial private investment, and by 2012, we expect america's capacity to reach 20% of the global market - and as high as 40% in 2015. but government has another responsibility, and that is to remove barriers that stand in the way of opportunity and prosperity so that our people - all of our people -- our workers, our entrepreneurs, our ceo's - can build the future that we seek. and that's what i want to focus on now. in my state of the union address, i set a goal for america-- over the next five years, we will double our exports of goods and services around the world - an increase that will boost economic growth and support millions of american jobs in a manner that is deficit-friendly. export growth leads to job growth and economic growth. in 2008, american exports accounted for nearly 7% of our total employment, one in three manufacturing jobs, and supported 10.3 million jobs in all - jobs that pay 15% more than average. so at a time when jobs are in short supply, building exports is an imperative. but this isn't just about where jobs are today, this is where american jobs will be tomorrow. 95% of the world's customers and fastest growing markets are beyond our borders. so if we want to find new growth streams, if we want to find new markets and new opportunity, we've got to compete for those new customers - because other nations are competing for those new customers. as i've said many times, the united states of america should not, cannot, will not, play for second place. we mean to compete for those jobs - and we mean to win. to we're going to have change how we do business. to meet this goal, we launched the national export initiative - an ambitious effort to team up with america's businesses, large and small, and help them unleash their energy and innovation, grow their markets, support new jobs selling their goods and services all across the globe. and we're bringing to bear the full resources of the united states government. one of the first things we did was establish an export promotion cabinet made up of cabinet members and senior administration officials whose work affects exports. yesterday, i assembled this cabinet for an update on our efforts so far. we're going to hold these meetings every few months - and i've asked for a progress report at our next meeting in september. but this is about more than what government can do, this is about what our businesses can do. and that's why we are re- launching the president's export council, a group that includes business and labor leaders who will offer their unfiltered advice and expertise on how best to promote exports. we've also included congressional leaders and senior representatives of my administration. and earlier today, members of my cabinet and i met with this council to begin soliciting advice. and i want to, again, thank jim, president and ceo of boeing, as well as ursula burns, ceo of xerox, for agreeing to serve as the chair and vice chair. our efforts are off to a solid start. american exports grew almost 17% over the first four months of this year compared to the same period last year. part of this, of course, is due to the global recovery. but we're also moving forward on improving conditions for america's exporters. and since we launched the national export initiative, we've made progress across its five objectives. first, we said that america would be a strong partner and better advocate in the international marketplace for its businesses and workers. and we're going to go to bat for everyone from the largest corporations to the smallest business owner with an idea that she wants to market and sell to the world. so, for example, already this year, the commerce department has coordinated 18 trade missions with over 160 companies that compete in 24 countries, and we've got 8 more planned over the next three months. their advocacy center has assisted american companies competing for export opportunities, supporting $11.4 billion in exports and an estimated 70,000 jobs. secretary clinton recently held a roundtable with businesses in shanghai, and next week, she'll host another one with secretary locke to discuss removing barriers that stand in the way of their success. meanwhile, we're moving forward with strengthening our business assistance centers across the country, and in our embassies and consulates abroad, so that they can provide a comprehensive toolkit of services to help potential exporters gain a foothold in new markets and expand - especially small businesses that might not know how to sell their products abroad. second, we're increasing access to export financing for small and medium-sized businesses that want to export their goods and services, but just need a boost. so the export-import bank has more than doubled its loans in support of american exporters since last year, and that step alone has helped support nearly 110,000 jobs. third, we're upping our efforts to remove barriers to trade and open new markets and new opportunities for american business. on a global level, this begins with pushing hard in the doha round to improve those negotiations so that they have a higher level of ambition in the way that will translate directly into more opportunities for american exporters. regionally, we're working on the trans-pacific partnership free trade agreement to expand our commercial presence in some of the most dynamic markets in asia. and where our businesses run up against barriers in individual markets, we are acting. in march, for example, we reached an agreement with china to reopen their market to american pork and pork products. and last month, during president medvedev's visit, we reached an agreement with russia to reopen their market to american poultry. and these steps are worth more than $1 billion to american business. owne also reforming our restrictions on exports, consistent with our national security interests. and we hope to move forward on new agreements with some of our key partners. i've instructed u.s. trade representative ron kirk to begin discussions to help resolve outstanding issues with the pending korean free trade agreement before my visit to korea in november. it's an agreement that will create new jobs and opportunity for people in both of our countries. we also want to deepen and broaden our relations with panama and colombia. so we're working to resolve outstanding issues with the free trade agreements with those key partners, and we're focused on submitting them as soon as possible for congressional consideration. and we'll make sure each agreement we pursue doesn't just advance the interests of our businesses, workers, and farmers, but also upholds our most cherished values. fourth, as we help american businesses access new markets, we're making sure that the access is free and fair. the united states offers some of the world's lowest barriers to trade, and when we give other countries the privilege of that free and fair access, we expect it in return. where american producers face unfair trade practices, we'll use every tool at our disposal to enforce trade agreements. last week, for example, the wto ruled in favor of the united states on a case that found european governments were subsidizing planes that airbus manufactures. that practice was unfair and hurt american workers. this ruling will help keep the playing field level and boost american jobs. and finally, we continue to coordinate with other nations around the world to promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth. at last month's g-20 summit, we built on the actions we took last year - actions that have replaced global contraction with global growth, and trade that was plummeting with trade that's bounced back. sustaining that recovery, however, also involves rebalancing our economies. as i told other leaders at the g-20, after years of taking on too much debt, americans will no longer borrow and buy the world's way to lasting prosperity. we alone cannot be the engines of economic growth. furthermore, a strong and durable recovery requires that countries not have an undue advantage. so we discussed the need for market-driven currencies -- and i welcome china's decision to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces. our discussion with china has also addressed the important challenge of how to create a more level playing field for american companies seeking to expand their access to the growing chinese market. and i made it clear to all that the united states of america is prepared to compete aggressively for the jobs and industries and markets of the future. the bottom line is this. for a long time we were trapped i think in a false political debate in this country where business was on one side, labor was on the other. there were partisan divides. the argument was either you were pro-trade or you were anti- trade. what we now have an opportunity to do is to refocus our attention where we're all in it together. businesses, workers, government -- everybody is focused on the same goal. we live in a interconnected world. there are global challenges and global opportunities. this nation has never shied away from the prospect of competition. we thrive on competition. and we are better positioned than anybody -- as uniquely positioned as ever -- to compete with anyone in the world. we've got the most respected brands, the best products, the most vibrant companies in the world. we've got the most productive workers in the world. we've got the finest universities in the world. we've got the most open, dynamic and competitive market in the world. when the playing field is even, nobody can beat us. and we are upping our game for the playing field of the 21st century. but we've got to do it together. we've got to all row in the same direction. there's no doubt that these are challenging times. but i'm absolutely convinced that we will rise to meet them - to grow our economy, to put our people back to work, to forge our own future once more. we are americans, and that is what we do. i appreciate all your participation and i'm looking forward to getting busy working with you. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ [applause] >> also, today, the president may 3 recess appointment, by passing the senate confirmation process. donald berwick named head of the medicare and medicaid programs. president obama appointed philip coyle as the assistant director of the offices of science and technology policy. >> the senate judiciary committee returns next week to vote on the nomination of elena kagan as the newest supreme court justice. learn more about the nation's highest court in c-span's latest book "the supreme court, candid conversations with all the justices," providing unique insight about the court. available in hardcover and has beeas an e-book. >> c-span is a public service created by america's cable companies. >> discussion about immigration policy and arizona's immigration law. we talked with a researcher from the center for immigration studies for 40 minutes this morning. host: steven camarota joins us to talk about u.s. immigration policy unner the obama administration. let's start with the lawsuit announced yesterday. how does this plan to the administration's overall policy toward emigratioimmigration. guest::the administration is trying to show they are serious, wanting to move against the arizona law, wanting the courts to stop it from going into affect. they argue thaa there are constitutional issues. host: could have come to some sort of terms to work together on something like this? it seems this is more of a turf battle over who will do the enforcement, rather than addressing the question of the need for enforcement. guest: i think there is some compromise possible. it is hard to see that here. the state wanted to do something. it had overwhelming suppoot in the state. the obama administration has a different opinion. it is tough to find compromise with that. host: one of your pieces earlier from the tennessee paper, what is to try to get there? guest: many people would say that we have to start enforcing the law first. let's stop talking about the idea that we will let illegal immigrants stay, that they will get a kind of amnesty -- whatever we call it. the public and common sense suggests the first thing you must do is restore the rule of law. collector employers. keep track of those coming in on a temporary basis. if you constantly say we will, right now -- you are going to do tto things. you encouraged illegal immigration, and at the same time destroy morale of those whose job is to enforce the law. host: on the other side there are those who say that at some point you have to offer amnesty because you cannot take those who are already here illegally and send them back to their country of origin, then expect them to get in the back of the line. that we would be moving millions and it would not be possible. guest: yes, there are an estimated 11 million illegal here. but sometimes we face a false choice. either we deport everyone as quickly as possible, or we have to give them eventual citizenship. i hope we don't face that kind of false dichotomy. a more moderate ground is let's enforce the law. the illegal population has declined by 1 million in the last two years. let's keep that going. let's enforce the law. we know from research that up to 300,000 leave on their own each year. they either decide to return to family, and sometimes get deported, as well. we need to get more to make that choice, reduce the number arriving, and overtime the problem can take care of itself. if down the road we decide we want to have amnesty after enforcing the law for years, we could consider that. right now makes no sense. is putting the cart before the horse. -- it is putting the cart before the horse. host: steven camarota is the research director with the center for immigration studies and is here to talk to was a bell policy for the next 30 minutes. as at the beginning of the program, we will have a special line for arizona residdnts. if you have called within the last 30 days, send us an e-mail or message by twitter. tell us a little about the center for immigration studies? guest: it is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to setting immigration in the u.s., we are non-partisan, and we provide many research on the impact of immigration on the nation. all our publications are available for free. everything we have ever written is on cis.org, available for download. host: our first call comes from the line for democratt from michigan. caller: i have seen a document on cnn that shows we are paying $1 million or more per week to house these people. murderers, rapists, and all kinds of people like this. we should either send these people back or charge mexico for their room and board. guest: the caller is certainly correct. crime is a big issue. the overall issue for illegal tough.ants and crime is very in the state of arizona looks like 11% or more of their prison population are illegal immigrants based on a program where they try to check status and then ask the federal government for reimbursement. it is true that in a certain to they have found 22% of all felonies committed their were committed by illegal immigrants. it would seem to indicate at least in arizona there is a fair amount of illegal immigrant crime. as we're trying toobill a foreign government -- as for that, good luck. it is not likely. this is an issue, one of the main concerns in the arizona. it is one of the reasons that arizona passed the law. but whatever the costs, we will have to absorb them because we cannot recoup them from another country. host: on the line for republicans, from california, go ahead. caller: we have of course in silicon valley -- we have, of course, many illegal immiggants. north 1, my question, when the u.s. -- number one, when we took the japanese and put them into camps, how many? it was over 1 million. this precedent was already said. i was on and if you did talk to the key constitutional issues regarding the obama filing agaanst arizona law. what are the key things they're talking about? i understand something about the commerce clause. can you drill down and tell us the reality of the worthiness of the holder filing? thank you. guest: in terms of the interment of the japanese during world war ii, the supreme court ruled in many cases it was not constitutional. we actually to people who were american citizens. but that is not really the issue of illegal emigration, but more one of national security at a time of war with foreign nationals in the country. let me give this warning that i'm not an agenda. one of the main questions is whether the state of arizona can make policy in an area that is clearly one or the primary responsibility is the ederal government. in general courts have ruled in several cases that it is ok for a state to make laws to discourage illegal immigratioo. they have also ruled that it is ok for state policeman, and local police tooenforce federal statutes. it seems that arizona has met standards defined by previous federal court rulings. with the brief prayer really argues is that it is upsetting the balance. the department is arguing sometimes we enforce the law, sometimes we do not. we do this based on complex the race of various policy goals. if arizona says, look, we're going to enforce federal law. that is what they have done. their law is a mirror of the federal law. the brief says they cannot do that. but it does not seem there is any court prescedent or legislation passed to indicate that. the brief itself has barely any citations of previous court rulings. so, it will be tough for the justice department to make the case. there is also a civil rights argument that the way the law is deserted is inherently biased. it is hard to make because the losses you can use ratrace to determine status, and it is harder for the government to make the argument the law has not yet gone into effect. you have to say you think it will be biased. but it doesn't seem that is likely to pass muster with the caller: hello. yes, thank you for suspending a finally you have someone there who understands the laws of immigration. and those are that ronald reagan put into effect back in the 1980's. it is to go after the people who own businesses who are these i am sick and tired of thess people coming on these shows and talking about why we need new immigration laws. just put the laws you have into effect. if i break the law, i'm doing something -- they don't turn around and make a new law for me. the go by the law that is on the books. ttat is exactly what they should do. i'm all for immigration because we all come from different lands. but the germans or the irish or the norwegians -- they did not come by the illions. they came by big bunches, but they stood in line and got their citizenship. guest: the caller makes a reasonable point that there are lots of laws on the books not currently in force. for example, it is illegal to employ someone not authorized to work in the u.s. but that law which we passed in 1986 has largely been an enforced. we originally envisioned having an employer ata base to check. that is still not fully implemented. it is only a voluntary system. the caller is correct that we allow people in on a temporary basis, and then do not keep track of whether the person leave sometime. these include foreign students. they could be 40% of the population of illegal immigrants. we don't keep track of people. a large section of our border remains unpoliced. it is not that hard from either the southern or northern border to enter. what is important about the political sentiment is is very unlikely the public will support amnesty unless they believe the law has been enforced. right now they're correct to say it is not happening, and we doubt it will, unless we begin. once theee is an amnesty, will we repeat the same process? and in 1986 we said we would crackdown, and we gave amnesty to about 3 million. since then, the law has been and enforce, and now we have about 12 million in illegal immigrants. the caller's question reflects the view of most americans -- first enforce the law, then come back to talk to me about amnesty. host: the next call comes from mike, on the line for republicans. caller: i'm interested to hear you talk about a couple of persons past. as complicated as it is, there needs to be a central force to resolve all those issues. i thinn i found one in the prticle one, section 9 of the constitution that says congress -- the migration of persons of any of the states entering and proper to admit shall be not permitted prior to a certain there by congress. the constitution gives congress not only the right, but the duty to handle it. it is not obamm or ron reagan responsible -- is congress. because of the supremacy clause in the constitution, that says this is shall be the supreme law of the land, and all state judges are bound thereby to support. host: we will leave it there. guest: the way that the laws constructed in arizonaa specifically says a non-citizen must carry documentation with them. it takes the exact language of the federal emigration language. there is no conflict with that. the courts have ruled that kind of situation is allowed in the sense that police can enforce local laws, and local communities can adopt laws to discourage illegal immigration. the cannot have a law in conflict with federal law. this law is specifically designed to mirror federal law, designed not to be in conflict. at least on its face it is not in conflict with federal law. but obviously, the lawsuits argue otherwise. host: i want to show the viewers discharge from "the baltimore sun" regarding states and immigration laws. and following the lawsuit against the arizona bill, the u.s. department is arguing the federal law supersedes state legislation. with that as a basis, why is there some attention on this arizona law, and not so much on the other 71 enacted by these other 34 states? guest: it is a criticism people are making of the administration. it does seem they have picked+ out arizona. they have left these other dozens of laws and ignore these court precedents that say that the states can. that the states caanot do anything here. since the law is designed to mirror federal law, it would seem to get around issues of supremacy and pre-emption. host: here they show a picture of the arizona governor who was to host a conference of mexican and american governors, but the mexicans are unhappy about the new law and protest. from left to right, california gov. schwarzenegger, texas gov. rick perry, and new mexico gov. richardson. is this law that arizona is trying to enact -- will have far reaching implications beyond the borders in arizona? will other governors look to it to see where they can and cannot go up against the fed steps guest? guest: missouri has a similar law. but it is more likely that many governors will not choose to do what arizona has. a program called e-verify -- arizona said a few want to hire you must use this data base to check if you're a worker is illegal or not. it seems to have had a big impact. there is an 18% decline in the illegal population compared to 7% nationally. but since all agree that kind of law is moving through the states. several have alleady dopted parts of that for contractors. so that is probably where arizona is leading the way. it is not clear whether more will do what arizona haps in terms of law enforcement. host: steven camarota is here to talk to about u.s. immigration policy. from san antonio, texas, on immigration policy. caller: people are getting tired of these politicians. arizona is fed up with what bush did and obama is doing. we want our orders secured firss. then we will talk. the business people here in the u.s. have screwed this country over. all the what to do is lower our wages and get away with all the money they can. we have to secure our borders. the terrorists are here. it is not he mexicans. it is the other people who come with the drugs and everything else. guest: believe what the caller said to stand on its own, but enforcing the law is what most americans want. that is where we have to start. that is where the biggest agreement is. then we can debate amnesty a couple of years down the road. you have to go after employers, and get more cooperation with local law enforcement. track the arrival and departure of people. another big area involves when we order someone deported, following up on that. we have about half a million people living here illegally who have been ordered to be deported by an immigration judge. that is another area. once we take those steps, then maybe we need a national debate about amnesty. but like the caller, you must do first things first. host: next up, metarie, louisiana, on the line for republicans. caller: we had hurricane katrina here and it did not of illegal immigrants as we did after hurricane katrina. humans in going after employers to hire illegals. what will happen to these people when they did not hire them? how will these people survive? -- you mentioned going after employers who hire illegals. i don't see how it will help the situation with illegal immigrants who are here. they will not go home. guest: some people do argue that, but the federal government has estimated that the illegal population between 2008 and 2009 did decline by 8500000. one of the main reasons that happened is many more went home. maybe 300,000 went home then, and it may be up to 500,000 going home now. so, it is possible if you cut off jobs to encourage a return migration. recent trends demonstrate immigraaion is not a permanent phenomenon. it is not so prominent as some have previously believed. people do go home. they always have. mmny more have been going home recently partly because of some stepped up enforcement efforts, and partly because of the economy. we can use that as an example. not every illegal immigrant is here to stay. the facts demonstrate otherwise. host: good morning, from mesa, arizona. caller: these people in the california who want to boycott of us might want to look at their immigration law which is as is the federal law, as is the mexican law for immigration. this is ridiculous. it is not just mexicans coming across our border. it is also terrorists like hezbollah, iraqis. anyone coming across the border, whatever. the idea that obama will not enforce the immigration law is really outrageous. he wants more votes. in the long run, that will hurt everyone. the u.s. government has already given 80 mills of arizona land to drug cartels. they're down there sitting on hilltops as lookouts for the drug runners. this is ridiculous. enforce the laws we have in this country. guest: yes, one thing the caller said that is particularly interesting is that a country like mexico has complained bitterly, but they have similar laws. in general mexico's immigration laws are pretty harsh. as the illegal immigrants from guatemala can tell you, and abuse by both the government and bandits -- it is not great down there. so it is hypocritical for mexico to say that. many other states do similar things. not exactly what arizona has. but making a state adopting policies and laws designed to discourage settlement of illegal immigrants is nothing new. arizona is in keeping with a longstanding tradition. it has already passed court muster. host: this e-mail came by a viewer from colorado. guest: yes, 287g is a program that deputizes local police. it allows them to explicitly ennorce federal immigration law. it creates a corporation between the local law enforcement and federal emigration a 40's, both in terms of a working relationship, and the ability to access databases. when someone is arrested or in jail they can search databases to see if this person is likely illegal. it involves several things. in general, in places where they have had it it has received a lot of praise. there are some critics. the one county in arizona had it, but the federal government is dissatisfied with the sheriff there. they have discontinued the program as a result. it has been extremely helpful to identify illegal immigrants. it is unfortunate the federal german is not pursuing the expansion of it. there is another program called "secure communities" which lets jails excess government databases. host: what is an moa agreement? guest: it is an agreement that a locality can enter into with the federal government. it would help coordinate immigration enforcement in that locality, including things like the ability to access government databases. host: back to the phones, charlie from chicago. caller: we hear conflicting reports about the economic impact of illegal immigrants. you mentioned you have expertise in the area, so we do talk a little about that? guest: yes, it is a big question, and i will try to be brief. basically, illegals make up 4% of the population. in the aggregate, illegal immigration will not make a huge difference one way or the other. a big area of concern is job competition. the short answer is, most americans do not compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. primarily because the illegals or to the bottom of the labor market. most have not even graduated high school in their home country. the problem is, precisely in that part of the economy where believe is due to be with the native-born competition is with the poorest and least educated parts of our country. overall unemployment is 11%, but that for college graduates is 6%. but for american high school dropouts and is 20%. if we look at those with only a high-school degree and our young, the kind of person who does compete with illegal immigrants over construction and food service -- that is where illegals are mostly concentrated. unemployment for high-school dropouts in america is 20%. we have a paradox. most americans did not compete, but those who do are overwhelmingly those were the least educated and already the poorest. concerning taxes paid and services used, illegal immigration is a drain. the illeggl immigrants use more services than they pay in taxes. it is especially true if you count any of the costs associated with the children have once they arrive here. we probably spend about $15 billion educating illegal immigrant children, those illegally here. but we probably spent more like $35 billion if we also count the u.s.-born children of illegal emigrants. the costs get very big ones recount their children. the primary reason illegal immigration creates large fiscal costs and look of their taxes compared to the services they use is not their legal status or because they did not work, but rather their educational attainment. people with relatively little education did not pay much in taxes. legal emigrant's without much education are also a fiscal drain, as is the native-born population without much education. so, does it make sense to bring in many unskilled immigrants? host: next, a kalamazoo, mich., on the line for democrats. caller: about three years ago i sent a letter to senator kennedy on immigration, nd also complemented that he was always the hero of mine, the way he fought for those who cannot defend themselves or did not have enough money. but getting to immigration, he read my paper and asked if i would be willing to work with his legal department. and i did that for about one year. when it was done if it would have been implemented and brought to committee, it would have found every illegal immigrant within the u.s. and a little over year except for those 100% getting their money from drugs. the company in my own hometown had an illegal emigrants working for them. i turned them in. they got 250 people including the company was given them an extra $1 per hour and health insurance, and telling them to keep their mouths shut, and it paid no social security or unemployment tax, or income tax, or state income tax. host: we will leave it there and move on to arizona on the line for republicans. caller: illegal immigrants and the state of arizona drain our education and social programs. is there a law stated in the federal law that prohibits them from coming to social services and receiving food stamps and all of that? also, when it comes to educating their children, and my little town we have seen a huge decline because of the lack of jobs. our education system is basically supported by property taxes. they are draining our education services. so, can we, or do we have as a nation of laws prohibiting them to use of these particular services? guest: the short answer is both yes and no. in education, no, the state cannot bar illegal immigrants from receiving an education from kindergarten through 12th grade. this is a well-known decision from the 1980's. congress can bar them from receiving it, but states can on their own say no education for illegal immigrants single-family on other programs, in most cases illegal immigrants and not supposed to get them. if they have a fake id, then it can happen. more often a sign of their children, so that children can get free school lunch, can be enrolled in medicaid, it can sometimes get food stamps. a pregnant woman who is illegal can be enrolled in medicaid, and can also get the wic nutrition program for low-income women and children. there are several programs that illegals can get, but they don't use them that muuh. there are many children of illegal immigrants signed up for these programs. the caller is correct that there is this fiscal drain, but it will be hard for arizona to do anything about that. the on a thing arizona can do is encourage illegal immigrants to go there, and to avoid the cost for arizona. the to and can sign up for emergeecy medical services. about one-third of the unemployed in arizona are illegal and they will be provided that medicare and education. host: the line for independents from connecticut. caller: hhllo. we'll let me finish if i talk fast? i was a deeocrat and became an independent because i'm fed up with the democrats. i can see right through them and their stand on immigration. they only want the vote. a mother and her sisters came to america from poland the legal wait many years ago, through ellis island. you did not see polish, italian, the other ethnic languages written on all of our products as you do today with spanish. and the spanish people have babies like rabbits. i have had it with asking salespeople in states and asking the question, and not understanding them because they don't speak english properly. what happens if they refuse to hire illegal immigrants forward? see how long they stay around. with all these immigrants coming into the country, look at the bedbug situation -- what has brought that? i think there should be no party -- was called the people's party with everyone getting together with their ideas and no grandstanding. it would be the only party to get all done, that way. guest: many of the things she is concerned about look closely to the idea of numbers and lack of diversity. in the past there were many different immigrant groups and no one group dominated the flow. no more than half of all immigrants to come in our spanish-speaking. then there is the numbers issue. we take in an enormous number of illegal emigrants. . . caller: i would agree with that last caller. i am tired of the dumbing down of our schools. host: we have to get onto another piece of programming. thank you for the call and we hope you call back soon. thanks to our guest, steven camarota, talking about immigration policy. >> the senate judiciary committee returns next week to vote on the nomination of elena kagan as the newest supreme court justice. learn more about the nation's highest court in c-span's latest book "the supreme court, candid conversations with all justices," providing unique insight about the court. available in hardcover and as an e-book. >> c-span is available and over 100 million homes. c-span, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> britain's prime minister talked about afghanistan, somalia, and domestic violence. >> the questions to the prime minister, and michaels. >> allen michael. >> number one, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. speaker. as the house will be aware today is the fifth anniversary of the seventh of july terrorist attacks on central london. i'm sure everyone in this house, people in our country will remember where they were and what they were doing when that dreadful news came through. our hearts should go out to the families and friends of those who died. they will never be forgotten. and our thoughts are are those with those injured by the dreadful events of that day. it was a dreadful day. but it is also a day that will remain, i believe, a symbol of the enduring bravery of the british people. >> here. >> mr. speaker, i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others in addition to my duties in the house i shall have further such meetings later today. >> mr. speaker, can i ask the prime minister if he will join me in congratulating the people of somali land on the successful peaceful and transparent election of a new president? as the somali land republic has now been a beacon of democracy for 20 years will the prime minister promise that a new country with democratic credentials will receive increased engagement from the u.k.? >> engine the right honorable gentleman is important it's an important issue and an area of world for our own security. i join him in welcoming the peaceful and credible elections in somali land. these are an example of genuine democracy in an area of the world not noted for it and the u.k. provided funding for election supervision. i believe the whole house is to prevent terrorist groups establishing their foothold in somali land that they have in somalia. this is vital and yes the government will continue to engage. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister will not be surprised to hear that i keep campaigning to keep the fleet line in my constituency as long as i possible can but at the end of the day it doesn't move in his constituency and takes with it -- takes with it the jobs and economic prosperity that goes with it will he at least use every good effort to find some way of bringing jobs and economic prosperity back adlightum? >> my honorable friend has fought a long and noble campaign over this issue. [laughter] >> and has made very strong arguments. i know how strong the arguments are, because every time i get into a hercules in afghanistan the pilots complain to move from his constituency to my constituency. if this goes ahead, that we do see good, strong economic development in his area. >> mr. speaker, can i support what the prime minister has said on the fifth anniversary of the terrible 77 bombings. to date we remember those who were killed and injured and their families and friends. we pay tribute to the emergency services who responded with such care and such courage and we stand with the government in our determination to defeat those who would bring terror to our streets. mr. speaker, there's been a lot of progress on tackling domestic violence but still every year hundreds of thousands of women are victims. many of the perpetrators are sent to prison rightly in my view. now the justice secretary has embarked on a sentencing review and has suggested that short sentences don't work. but it's often not rehabilitation that's needed in domestic case but a very clear message to the perpetrator that it musn't be repeated and the justice system takes this seriously and that's what a short sentence can do. can the prime minister confirm that the sentencing review will not stop magistrates giving short prison sentences for domestic violence? >> well, i think the honorable -- first of all, can i thank her for what she says for the anniversary and the tribute she rightly paid to the emergency services. you played an unbelievably role on that day and the many people who helped them. i think she's absolutely right to raise the issue of domestic violence. for too many years this was an issue that police forces and prosecutors didn't deal with properly and to be fair to the last good has been made over the last issue. i do agreeing there are occasions when short sentences are required and indeed the lord chancellor takes exactly the same view. he said in the speech -- [laughter] >> very important to -- very important to read the speech and not just the headline. he said in my opinion abolishing short sentences all together would be a step too far. we need penalties and ensure that the magistrates have that power but we need to make sure we get this right. >> well, i thank the prime minister for that reassurance. it is reassuring the liv dem promise they made in the election is not going to be carried forward. and can i congratulate -- i mean, i noticed the justice secretary is not looking very cheerful. perhaps he should go down to ronnie scotts to cheer himself up. [laughter] >> can i congratulate the prime minister for instead of listening to his new partner listening to his mother. because in the election he told us that his mother was a magistrate. and that she told him magistrates need the powers of short sentences. quite often it is the right thing for somebody not to listen to their new partner but to listen to their mother. so i'm glad he's done this on that occasion. [laughter] >> can i turn to something else mentioned in the election campaign. in the election campaign he said, any minister who came to him with cuts to front line services -- he said, and i quote will be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again. does that apply to the home secretary? >> well, first of all, can i say in my experience there's very few people more cheerful than the lord chancellor. he's celebrating his 40th anniversary in this house. he likes to -- he likes to point out he was elected before the counselor of exchequer was actually born. [laughter] >> and he brings enormous experience and good humor to all our counsels. i'm excited the right old lady has brought up the issue of my mother who served on the bench for many, many years. i have to say one of the biggest challenges she had and the most often -- as well as me. [laughter] >> and one of the -- and one of the reasons she needed to hand out so many short sentences was mostly to badly behave protesters outside of green commons. [laughter] >> so -- i don't know if she was there. if the right honorable lady wants to have more episodes with listen to mother, that would be fine. in terms of the home office, of course, we have to make savings. we have to make savings across government. it's not going to be easy but absolutely. we must make sure that we do everything we can to protect the front line. but i simply don't believe when you look at the home office budget there aren't examples of waste and inefficiency and things we could do better. and i would say to the honorable lady this, she went into the election calling for 20% cuts in every department. that was her policy. a policy of 5% cuts each year as is 6% cuts each year. so these are labour cuts as well. >> well, we went into the election very clear to protect police numbers. i'm asking him a straightforward question, which he has so far failed to answer. because of prime minister's questions, he was asked by my honorable friend the member for westminster north this very simple straightforward question. will there be fewer police officers at the end of this parliament compared to now? that's what she asked him. he skirted around her question and didn't answer it. will he answer it now? >> of course, there's going to be difficult decisions. a very -- a very simple question was put to the shadow home secretary before the last election. the question -- just wait foisht. -- for it. andrew neil. can you guarantee if you form the next government that police numbers won't fall. alan johnson, can you confirm that? alan johnson, no. >> but what he did -- what he did go on to stay -- i think that's a selective quoting. yeah. what he did go on to say that we would guarantee the funding which would ensure the police numbers and the numbers of police community support offices. we were absolutely clear about this. now, his liv dem partners said that they would have 3,000 more police on the beat. he said he would protect front line services. are either of those promises going to be kept? people who are concerned about crime want to know. >> there's nothing selective about the word no. that is what the shadow home secretary was asked when he was asked if he could guarantee there wouldn't be cuts in police numbers. let's remember why we're here. we got 155 billion-pound deficit. the labour party went into the last election promising 50% cuts in capital spending and 20% cuts in department spending. we are clearing up the mess that they he made. -- that they made. when i sat at the g20 table last weekend and you look around the table and think who's got the biggest budget deficit, is it brazil? no. is it spain? no. is it argentina, no. they left us in a situation where we get lectured by argentina on the state of our budget deficit. >> harriet harman. >> well, if he had read the obr report he'd seen that their forecast for government borrowing was lower than the forecast that we made before the election and probably if he had read the obr report he wouldn't have found the chair has resigned straight away after being appointed. but isn't it clear that this is the government's crime policy. he's threatening to take away police officers that people want on the beat. he's cutting down the right of local residents for cctv. he's making it harder for the police to use dna evidence. those are his policies. let me ask him a very straightforward question. does he think those policies are more likely to make crime go down or go up. >> the point is after the last government violent crime and gun crime went through the roof. the honorable lady, they almost doubled. yes, i think it's time for honorable members -- there's going to be a rush of new labour memoirs coming up. perhaps they should start with their spin doctor who worked for the last prime minister. >> no, we went bother with that i say to thee, mr. prime minister. harriet harman. order, order. i'm very clear what is in order and what isn't and that's the end of the matter. harriet harman. >> thank you, mr. speaker. from the conservatives it was all about tougher policies and more police. now all that seems to have sailed off with those prison ships he was promising to buy. now, we were very clear. we said when we first came into government, we would bring crime down and we did. will he promise that under his government he will keep crime coming down? will he make that promise. if he won't make that promise, he knows as we all know his policies will put crime up. >> mr. speaker, i was only trying to boost sales. i can promise the honorable lady one thing, let me promise the right honorable lady one thing i won't be wandering around my constituency in a stab-proof vest. that's what it came to under the last government. gun crime went up, violent crime went up, reoffending of prisoners went up. 45,000 pounds for the cost of every prison place, more than 10% of them shouldn't have been there because they're foreigners. half of them are on drugs and 40% of them commit a crime on the way out. that's their record and that's what we'll be cleaning up. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the late report from the u.s. department of defense to congress highlighted the speed and propaganda in afghanistan as a key threat to allied forces. what can coalition do to counter this threat the longer it goes on, the harder it is. >> we have to demonstrate the progress that we're making in terms of training up afghan army, afghan police and spreading security and governance across afghanistan particularly in our case southern afghanistan. we will be publishing quarterly updates in this house so we make sure we keep the publish public fully informed and on side as we take difficult decisions in this conflict. >> in the run-up of the general election, the party that would support small businesses and yet -- on their first budget they counseled out tax breaks for computer games industry crucial to my constituency of dundee west, can the prime minister tell me and not only others who are employed in the computer games industry and the students who study that at the university in dundee just why head chancellor feels that this tax break was clearly targeted? >> well, we believe what matter is low tax rates what and we did in the budget which the house voted last night cut it down from 20p from 22p and set out a path of getting corporation tax by 2% by the end of this parliament which will give us one of the lowest rates in the g8, the g 20 or anywhere in europe. that's what we benefited for. the i know the party opposite voted against those tax reductions. >> how can my right honorable friend talks about the last government. my local council turned down some massive developments since as the mega depo only to find them overturn those decision business government ministers who never even visited the site? how can we reengage local people in these local decisions? >> well, i do want to reassure my right honorable friend and those decisions should be taken as locally as possible. and we are scrapping the targets and the bureaucracy that we inherited party opposite. and i can tell him since the election, we've actually scraped the unity councils and the area assessments are gone, regional spatial studies gone, regional assemblies gone, and labour's port tax and bin tax both gone. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if the respect agenda is to mean anything than surely it should include proper consultation with the involved governments and literatures on fundamental constitutional and political reform which affects all parts of the united kingdom and indeed will affect the composition of the literatures. will the prime minister discuss with the administrations and it necessary revised its proposals in light of what it has to say and have a proper respect agenda? >> of course, these discussions need to take place and they will take place. but i listened -- let me answer the question very directly 'cause i listened very comments on this issue. the date and the nature of the referendum is a westminster parliament issue and it's right. it is brought before the westminster parliament first. it doesn't make sense to to take it in other parliaments and other assemblies first. that's the way to do it. >> order. let me just say to the house that members shouldn't shout at the prime minister in that way. first of all, it is rude. secondly, it delays the progress of our proceedings. and we really musn't have it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the prime minister reassure victims in my constituency that this government remains committed and ensuring -- to ensuring justice for policyholders? >> i can certainly give my honorable friend. we are committed to a billing in this needs to happen. the parliamentary ombudsman referred to a decade of regulatory failure and the fact we're having to wait for this to be done is wrong. the last administration had a way to combat this and they were waiting more for the policyholders were actually dying off. it's disgraceful and we need to get done. >> mr. speaker, in the afternoon now i join with the community in my constituency to welcome home sergeant gary jamison. sergeant jamison from the scot guards lost both legs and his left arm in an explosion in afghanistan. the most humbling aspect of meeting sergeant jamison was his distinct lack of bitterson. he fully supports the mission in afghanistan. and he strongly believes the british forces there are making a difference. can i ask the pm, in joining me a british hero and also agree with me that the my guest fitting way to pay tribute for those who made the ultimate sacrifice and those who have suffered the most terrible is to stay in afghanistan until the job is done? >> well, i certainly join the honorable gentleman in paying the right tribute he does to sergeant jamison and to all those who have served and any of those who have met with some of the soldiers who lost limbs in combat through ieds and other ways and elsewhere you can't help be incredibly impressed by the spirit and the bravery and the determination of these people to go on and live as full lives as possible. we've set out very clearly what we want to achieve in afghanistan. this is the key year when we surge up the military forces. we surge up the political pressure. and my honorable friend the defense secretary making a statement and how we do that best and make sure our forces are properly spread across helmand province so we can really have the effect that we want. but let me be clear, that we should be there in a combat role or significant numbers in five year's time no, i don't. this is the time to get the job noun and the plan envisages making sure we won't be in afghanistan in 2015. we have been there for four or five years in helmand and since 2001 it's time to maximize the pressure and to bring our forces home as we train up the afghan army and police force to do the job that needs to be done, which is to keep that country secure. that is our goal. that's in our national security interest. and that's what we'll do. >> annette brook. >> thank you, mr. speaker. some of suffer greatly from the actions of a small minority of site owners, threat, neglect, intimidation. will the prime minister meet with myself so that we could discuss how park homeowners may be better protected? >> well, i have every sympathy with the point the honorable lady motions. -- mentions. i suspect many myself included had occasion where you had problems with park homeowners who have been really badly treated by frankly pretty disreputable park homeowners. we all know those people who people want to sell are pressurized and the rules are used to prethem from getting fair value. it's not right and fair. the housing minister is looking into this issue and i think probably best if she would meet with him in ordeto make sure we have robust rules and the right approach to make sure park homeowners have their rights respected. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on friday, my constituent zach was murdered in a planned attack close to his school. he was just 15 and i know the thoughts of the entire house will be with his family in this very difficult time. he is the 13th teenager to lose their life. needlessly in our capital city. can the prime minister tell me and the rest of the house and the country what his government is doing and will be doing going forward? to stop this happening in our communities? >> well, i think the honorable gentleman is absolutely right to raise this case, which everyone will have read about. it is absolutely horrific. and it seems so planned and premeditated and it's appalling that things happen on our streets. there are short term measures we need and much longer terms measures as well. in terms of the sentencing review, i'm very clear we do need the strongest possible signal about how carrying a knife on our streets is just unacceptable. we need to send auto signal that it's not a defensive measure. it's not a cool thing to do. it's not what -- it should not happen and the punishment will be tough. that is the short-term measure in my view that we need. the longer term measure is we've got to do more to strengthen communities, to strengthen families to give people an alternative to the gangs that that are otherwise towards. they join a gang because other networks and hope and respect in their lives. it's a long-term agenda and it's an agenda shared on both sides of the house and we must pursue it. >> can my honorable friend give an insist further move of the european union that we will not see the investigate of our budget plans by the european commission before those plans are presented to this house. >> my right honorable friend is entirely right the u.k. barometer should be shown to the parliament before it's shown to anyone else and that's always going to be the case under this government. i am pleased to report that subsequent to its publication a number of international bodies have all recognized it was an extremely good budget that's going to help put this country back on track. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the prime minister give the house a clear pledge on child poverty today? will there be fewer children in this country living in relative poverty by the end of believe apparent? -- parliament? yes or no. >> we're committed to meeting child poverty. please remind him this budget in spite of all its difficulties does not add a single family to child poverty. wherein in contrast to the last government that put up child poverty in -- by 100,000. they shake their heads, check the figures and come back and have another look. >> mr. robert buck land. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will my right honorable friend give an assurance that all new academies who will be set up will be obliged to accept children with special educational needs? >> i can absolutely give my honorable friend that assurance. academies will be required to ensure that pupils with special educational needs are admitted on the same basis as other schools. children with special educational needs have special needs. a compassionate and tolerant and decent country will make sure they get the help and the support and the education and also the love that they need. >> angela smith. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the chief head secretary was last year presented with a lifetime achievement award by the institutes of directors. and yet various members of this government front bench have made personal unwarranted attacks on him in the media. will the prime minister apologize now for these unjustified attacks made on a highly regarded businessman? >> i'm sorry to disagree with the right honorable lady. this is an excellent company. it's an excellent business. the question issist whether is it an appropriate use of terry money to give money to a business that could actually raise that money by diluting its share holding? the party opposite simply doesn't understand. they go out handing out money before the election without asking is it value for money? no wonder we're in such a mess. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the u.k. has a splendid reputation for the quality of its agricultural, science and research and these schools will be needed to face up to the challenges of climate change and an increasingly rural population. will the prime minister confirm that government and e.u. policy decisions in these matters will be taken on the basis of sound science and proportionate regulation? >> well, i know the honorable member is a member on science and technology and agriculture. these are difficult issues. my view is yes we should be guided by the science but we should be guided by what consumers want. and accurate labeling to making sure we make progress with this issue in a way that keeps the public onsite and allows them to understand what it is they're buying and consuming. >> david anderson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the whole house will be aware and concerned about the ongoing incident in the northeast. the killer of chris brown took place in my town of berkley and our thoughts and prayers should go with their families and friends and david rathbun and his family. and where we are with this issue can he assure us all lessons should be learned from this incident and look again in getting guns off the street. >> the right honorable gentleman is right of this and the whole gun of those who have lost their lives and injured. it is a horrific case. i don't think it's right now to start talking about the process of learning any lessons. this is an ongoing case. the home secretary has been briefed by the chief constable and i know the whole house and the whole country will be wishing the police well in their search for this individual so that we can put a stop to the horrendous spree that's taking place. >> thank you, mr. speaker. voting by nonresident second homeowners in regions is becoming a contentious issues. councils are not checking in the local elections and some are worried results may be skewed. will the prime minister meet with me or in the one of his ministerial counsel to discuss this issue. >> it is important we make sure electoral registers is accurate. it is an offense to vote in an general election in two different places. i have to say there are problems, i think, in saying whether or not second homeowners can vote. i think a number of honorable members might take a dim vote because some might not be able to vote in his constituencies but i'll be happy to have a meeting for the member responsible for electoral reform. >> number 10, mr. speaker. >> can i first of all welcome the right honorable lady to the house. and the honorable members constituency and it's completely unacceptable today that 58% of the housing in her constituency is not of a decent standard. we do have a huge backlog of work to be carried out. we've plowed 170 million pounds back in social housing schemes this financial year which the last government promised but didn't fund. clearly the decent homes program will have to be looked at in the spending review but i understand the force of argument in her constituency particularly. >> thank you, prime minister. is the prime minister aware that some 7,000 counsel homes need to be brought up in the home standards. the last government committed 22 million towards addressing this problem. will his government honor that commitment to my constituents? >> as i said we've actually filled in some of the black hole left by the last government because a promise of extra spending was made but the money wasn't found. and while we made the 6 billion pounds of cuts to start sorting out the finances we used some of the saved money to fill in the black holes so that social housing schemes could go ahead. clearly the decent homes program is important. we have tongue it's value for money but her constituency has very great needs with so many substandard needs. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my 9-year-old constituent says she and her brother learned to swim because it was free. paisley is worried her little sister won't be able to learn because this government wants to charge in her letter paisley says please, please stop this madness. will the prime minister listen to paisley and have a rethink? >> well, first of all, can i congratulate the honorable lady and many people in this country think it's a good time to go into the politics and go media and can i congratulate the warmth of the g mtv sofa to come onto a green bench here. she raises an important case. i have to say to her that not all labour councils were able to deliver the free swimming pledge and this is one of the things like many other things i'm afraid it's not always going to be possible to guarantee in the incredibly straight times when we live in >> before the senate judiciary committee votes up or down, but the entire confirmation hearing, including her testimony, senators' questions and comments, and all the witnesses online at the c-span video library. to purchase a copy of the hearing, just purchased the buy now. c-span is available in 100 million homes, bringing new washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. the house armed services committee held a hearing on misidentification of graves at arlington national cemetery. army secretary john mckee was questioned. this is just under two hours. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning. we think is best to proceed and go as far as we can, and if our witnesses will indulge us while we go over and vote, we will be back as quickly as possible to resume this very important hearing. today we hear testimony about the management of arlington national cemetery. we are hearing from john mckusick, the secretary of the army, the inspector general of the army, and we welcome you both to the armed services committee. i am angry. period. anger is generally not a useful the motion, particularly on capitol hill. however, this is downright anger during. arlington cemetery is our nation's most hallowed ground. it is reserved as the final resting place of our road warriors. management neglect it has resulted any web of errors. how could this be allowed to happen? behind the facade of what appeared to be a well orchestrated burial services, investigations reveal a dysfunctional management team operating without any oversight. we all know people who are buried there. people we respect. a people whose memory we hold dear. my next-door neighbor is buried there. every american, whether they have a loved one that buried at arlington or not, should be outraged. secretary, i know you have done much to right this wrong, but i cannot understand how the army has allowed the problem to fester for years. there is clear evidence in 1992 the army was aware of the level of leadership discord in arlington that would not have been tolerated in any other organization. a cry out for intervention, but the army's response was to for the withdrawal from arlington cemetery operations. let me make clear that uniformed service members who so proud to conduct the military honors ceremonies with such grace and precision are not part of the problem. we're so proud of the service members to provide the ceremonies during these troubled times at arlington cemetery. sadly, notwithstanding the efforts of the army of that many difficult challenges, given the limited nature of the investigation until now, the 200 irregularities and seceded with grave sites -- associated with great sites may be a fraction of the problem. we must be prepared at 100% survey of the cemetery in all its operations must now be undertaken will be it -- will yield a larger number of problems that must be addressed. the american people and our military families expect those who wear the uniform of this nation have made the ultimate sacrifice and are afforded the month -- the upmost respect and dignity even after death. they deserve no less. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, general, good morning and welcome. it would look forward to your testimony today. the recent revelations about the mismanagement and systematic failures at arlington national cemetery are shocking and heart wrenching. arlington national cemetery is hallowed ground and its sacred hill served as the final resting place for thousands of our nation's heroes. family's demand and deserve to know their loved ones are being treated with the utmost respect and decorum. canaller the army was aware of some of these problems for nearly 20 years and took no corrective action is extremely disappointing. with that said, i commend the secretary for directing a comprehensive and thorough investigation into the matters at arlington. forthrightly acknowledging the army's mistakes and taking the necessary steps to restore the public's confidence in the army's stored ship of this sacred ground, -- stewardship of the sacred ground, we have committed to ensure that systems and processes are in place that will make certain these errors are never repeated and is responsible are disciplined appropriately. among the most concerning findings of the inspector general is the nearly complete failure to comply with federal defense or army acquisition regulations for its services and property procured by arlington national cemetery. the evidence provided by the investigation goes far beyond in it for a non compliance and overworked contracting officers. i find these practices to be unacceptable, particularly given the renewed emphasis on contract in best practices and ensuring business systems deliver value for the war fighter and taxpayer, as highlighted by the commission. at last year's acquisition reform act and the improved acquisition act approved by the house. while the sector has directed a review of the contracts in the past five years, i believe the review must go further to ensure that the army stops responding to contract failures and an merely a reactionary mode. i am hopeful the testimony will address these concerns and progress of the department an investigation any criminal conduct on the part of the contracting officers and agencies. that appears that once and the army has failed to recognize the dramatic increase in the mission of the support of its organization. the cemetery's workload is understandably increased as more of our veterans pass on, in addition to the castle is from iraq and afghanistan. what is surprising that the staff has steadily decreased. until this investigation became public, there was pressure to cut civilian personnel further. it is clear efforts to achieve economies at the cemetery have led to a breakdown in the mission with disastrous results. thankfully, the dedicated staff is able to carry out their mission despite the inadequate manning and longstanding leadership failures, and they deserve our gratitude. lastly, i believe to achieve a complete and accurate accounting for all of the graves and remains at arlington national cemetery, it will require a massive effort and considerable amount of resources and time. my concern is whether the army with all of its competing missions it is committed to accounting for all 330,000 individuals intered at arlington national cemetery. i am hopeful you can provide that assurance to this committee. once again, thank you for being here today and i look forward to your testimony. i yelled back, mr. chairman, and a request by false statement be entered into the record. >> without objection, we thank the gentleman from california. i ask unanimous consent that a statement from the reserve officers association be entered into the record and will be taken without objection. i also ask unanimous consent to the representative bobby rush be allowed to participate as questions on the five-minute rule following the members of the committee. without objection. understandry, i that you have a commitment. we hope in light of the fact we have a few votes this morning we can stretch that to give us a few extra minutes. we will do our best to work with you on that. so, let's move as quickly as we can and are questioning -- in our questioning, and now we call on the secretary and welcome you back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me assure you, in response to your very reasonable request, we will do everything we can to provide as much time as possible for questions. i think you probably understand i have a great appreciation for the role of this committee and i will do everything i can to facilitate and support it's very important oversight role, particularly in a matter such as this. i want to truncate my statement a bit. i had rather 21, and i thought it was appropriate given -- i had a rather lengthy one, and i thought it was appropriate given the serious nature, but time is more important in the exchange, so i will try to be brief. let me assure you, mr. chairman, while the anchor i know you and every member of this committee feels, i share. i look forward to the honor and that opportunity as serving as secretary, the last thing i envisioned was facing an issue such as this. shortly after my arrival in the building late in september, i learned of their review ordered by my predecessor, a former member of this committee, secretary pete dara, asking the inspector general to examine the cemetery's policies and procedures and coordination process these as well as its command in leadership structures. november 12, the inspector general advise me of the progress of the inspection. based on the things i heard then and other information that had come to my attention, i ordered the expansion of that to include an examination of the information, technology, and insurance,, darting and procedures. i also ordered a full-scale investigation into allegations of hostile work environment, inappropriate hiring practices, improper interment, and non compliance with regulations and accountability years. as i think everyone knows, on june 8 of this year, the lieutenant general submitted his report containing 76 factual findings and making 101 recommendations for improvements. you know the findings of that. i have tried to be as transparent as possible. we have posted all of the reports came out of all of these efforts. all of the attended orders that i gave in response to those. in short, what the general found was a system that suffered from dysfunctional management, lack of established policies and procedures, and on health the organizational climate, numerous errors in the accountability of remains as well as the now rightfully infamous 111 discrepancies between burial maps and grave sites. those demanded immediate action. upon receipt of the inspector general's report, i directed the entire restructuring of the leadership, administration, and oversight. just if i may, i will go through the major points of those orders. i ordered the rescission of the general order 13, which created a fractured management structure of the cemetery. i would creation of a director of the arlington national cemetery program to provide the likes big ship and management -- to provide the correct leadership and management. it called for the oversight group and the director to restructure the cemetery group and make the corrections and efficiencies unveiled in the report. it ordered the creation of the arlington national cemetery advisory committee with oversight and regimented review of activities and at anc. former senator bob dole and mac's cleveland have graciously agreed to assist us in the establishment of this creep key strategic focus group. i reached out to my friend and colleague, the secretary of the veterans affairs department, the former chief of staff of the army, for assistance. he detailed the director of office. throughout the gracious support of the secretaries, and also the efforts of others, we're finding a better way forward. i ordered an all-inclusive study of the organizational structure, manpower and equipment requirements, to better ensure we have the right resources, personnel, and capabilities to meet the cemetery's growing mission. these are just a few of the steps i have taken. i have also ordered full audits of all the contracts. we don't know what we don't know, but we are working hard every day to find out everything that is possible as to those who, like, and what behind the failures, particularly to. german and contract management. for 146 years, the army has i think probably served the administration of this hallowed ground, as you so rightfully put it. clearly, the inspector general's report has found in recent days, perhaps in recent years, we have lost that commitment and that record of success. how to pledge to this committee and to the american people and the men and women who wear the uniform of this great nation and those who love and support them that the army is doing and will continue to do everything necessary and possible to write these unimaginable, unacceptable wrongs. we are on our way. i think we have a process that will hopefully solve many of the problems that have been none failed with respect to yesterday, and says it on a better path for tomorrow. with that, i rely upon my return statement in its submission to complete the record. i yield back. >> without objection, the entire statement will be placed in the record. general, thank you for being with us. >> thank you, chairman, and ranking members, distinguished members of the house armed services committee, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our investigation and inspection into the issues at arlington national cemetery. the secretary has explained the genesis of our examination and related investigation into the matters, and i ask that that and further comments be submitted as a matter of statement into the record. what i would say, sir, is while our findings raise very serious issues that we are all aware of, and they require significant remedial actions that the secretary has outlined, i would like to make it clear and assure folks that the a.n.c. employees working under a high operational tempo, lack of leadership, lack of forward fishing, and thinking, still managed to serve our soldiers, on our families, and honor all americans with first-class burials, ceremonies, and wreath laying ceremonies by senior leaders of our nation. that commitment never faltered. our job and our commitment as an army is to ensure the resources are applied, that these men and women who served in the fallen so honorably have what they need when they needed, and keep that tradition that we have followed for so many years. mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your continued support of our service members answer -- and civilians to serve our nation, and i look forward to your questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, can we in this committee expect and all that -- expect an audit of all the cemetery grave sites? with the use of technology and data that is modern and up-to- date? where are we on that? >> we have already begun to examine the record and the circumstances with the 211 graves that the inspector general identified. we have resolved at about 26 of those thus far. as your question is framed suggests, is a very laborious process under the current procedures available. it is our intent to do exactly what you suggested, check the three sources of records currently available -- that is the site map, the actual burial cards and records that are contained in paper, against tombstones and actual documentation associated with those. to do that for some 330,000 graves is going to take a better system of record keeping, and that means the best in i.t. i have directed the army c i a g-six, which is the technology experts for the army, to engage at arlington to begin to identify the process seized by which we need to move forward, to have that done as quickly as possible. i would say as well. through the generosity and graciousness of many private sectors, including senator warner and his support of a consortium and northern virginia technology interests, we are exploring the possibility of assistance from the outside to facilitate and accelerate that to the greatest extent possible. there are some legal issues there with prohibitions and certain fashions for accepting outside guests, but if we can work that out, we will use those resources as well. as soon as the i.t. problems are solved, we will begin the process of checking and cross checking all of those records for each of the 330,000-some graves. >> mr. secretary, in the course of your review of the situation, have you encountered information that would explain why the army did not replace the leadership team, the civilian leadership team at arlington? because the army was obviously well aware of the dysfunctional relationship between the superintendent and his deputy. >> we can speculate some with some reason not so much the last inspection 1997 had a follow on that it has not been widely reported. the commanding general after that report and the council the superintendent and deputy superintendent, which is the standard procedure for first addressing those issues. there were also follow on inspections that the inspector general is far better position than i to detail and 1998 and 1999. i think one of the major issues centers around general order 13. i guess what provided that was as much support as possible, but the fact is that by putting everyone in charge, nobody was in charge. there were some issues as to who was the controlling authorities. having said that, for whatever the reasons, it should never have happened. what we're trying to do i have restructured the administrative process these and the lines of authorities are very clear through the executive director to my desk. it is not exactly probably optimum, but this is an immediate response, and as we go forward as may be appropriate. >> this brings the question to mind, should the army continue its responsibility for managing arlington cemetery or should be given to some other agency? >> mr. chairman, as you know, i can think of several other agencies that are in fallston cemetery operations. but the army, for perhaps different reasons, all of those agencies are stressed as well, and while i cannot speak for the heads of those agencies, i am not sure the fair thing to do it is byrd and others because of the shortcomings of the united states army. in 146 years, there are many reasons, because background is the resting place of america's greatest heroes. but i believe over that nearly century and a half, the army has helped polish that reputation. clearly, that record has been tarnished. we are committed to fully to regaining that kind of record into the future. i will work as hard and the people that we have brought into this initiative will work as hard as possible to restore what we consider an army problem. i would note as well, mr. chairman, this is the final resting place of veterans, but we are in a special circumstance. nearly half of the heroes who are interred at arlington in this current era our army. i cannot speak for other services, but i would not be surprised if they feel strongly as well, we feel is the responsibility of the military, particularly in times of war, to carry those heroes to their final resting place. we feel very strongly about that. i fear, if i may, as a former member of this committee for 17 years, that moving jurisdiction from this committee elsewhere would have certain considerations that would need to be carefully considered, with all due respect. again, until we are ordered to step down, we're going forward. >> thank you very much. we are running out of time. if you have to finish when we come back, we'll do just that. >> thank you. as i alluded, mr. secretary, in my opening statement, i am concerned that the review of contracts may not go far enough. what it is not conducive to best practices, it is understandable that an operation like arlington national cemetery would not have significant in- house acquisition expertise and would rely on other army commands for contacting support. the cemetery relied heavily on the army corps of engineers and the army contract center for excellence for contract awarding administration. these organizations should have substantial depth and experience and contracting. yet in instances after instance, the contract officers failed to comply with the most basic of regulations. for that matter, with plain common sense. they frequently failed to verify the contractors' receiving noncompetitive awards were capable of performing on the contracts. the award contracts to contractors with cost proposals over double the amount necessary to perform the work. they awarded contracts for information technology services to contractors who did not have any qualifications or training to perform it. most contracts contain no determination of practices were fair or reasonable. some proposals that typographical errors, contacting officers surrounded down the errors. the list goes on. i find it impossible to believe the contracting officers for the corps of engineers and convert the center of excellence reserved this sloppy work for just arlington national cemetery. therefore, my two-part question, what steps is the army going to take to ensure other contracts awarded by these contrasting officers, not just those four arlington, are in compliance with federal and defense regulations and are protected the interests of the american taxpayer? and second, have the contract officers involved had their warts suspended and what remedial training is being put in place now to avoid further violations of this law? >> as i know you understand, congressmen mckeon, the army is bound by elements of due process to fill the record before we take any disciplinary actions, including suspicion -- suspension of warrants. i would agree fully that where we are now should not be the end in terms of review of the contracts, and is not. what we need to do and are doing is to establish a factual basis and fill in what is missing. that is a vast of what would normally be considered required paper trail as to the structure of those contracts and how they were reviewed and what procedures were used or not used in that process. the acquisition and contracting authority for the army has been directed by me to examine those contracts. they are being supported by my direction by the army auditing agency. we are very hopeful that will provide us a much more clear understanding of what if any failures were committed, which if any malfeasance existed, and as you have heard mention here earlier this morning, a criminal investigation division is being provided all of those materials and will make those determinations, not just against particular contract in officers but wherever that trail may take us. this is for us the beginning of a process. we have laid it out. it is already underway. i promise you we will pursue it to its end. >> may we resume with your questions on the completion of the votes, and then go on to others? we will recess until we return. >> mr. mckeon has finished his questioning. >> i want to welcome you to the committee. with you at the helm, i know things will work out. it is always a pleasure to have you here and thank you for your honest and frank dialogue. with the significant number of marked and unmarked graves, what is the army doing to reach out to the families of the deceased warriors, service members, and what is the army doing to properly account for these unmarked or miss mark graves and mark those sites? and the report only focuses on the purchase of arlington national cemetery. do you think this problem exists in other areas of the cemetery? i know we focus on arlington, but we have cemetery's many places, iraq, africa, belgium. i'm just wondering, i hope this is not a widespread problem that we have. but if it does, i know that you will look at it and take care of it. so maybe you could respond to my question? thank you so much. >> t