Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

August 20, 2007


Host: Larry Lemmons

One on One


  • In our weekly segment providing different viewpoints on issues that affect Arizonans, Tequida And Gutierrez’s John Loredo and State House of Representatives Republican Spokesperson Barrett Marson join us.
Guests:
  • John Shadegg - U. S Congressman
  • John Loredo - Tequida and Gutierrez
  • Barrett Marson - State House Republican Spokesperson


View Transcript
Larry Lemmons:
Tonight on "Horizon" a conversation with Congressman John Shadegg. Two political types go head-to-head on issues that affect Arizona in our regular Monday feature "one-on-one." And let there be light! Longer, lasting light… our sustainability segment next on "horizon."

Larry Lemmons:
Good evening. Thanks for joining us tonight on "horizon." I'm Larry Lemmons. Two criminal charges were dismissed today for former Maricopa County school superintendent Sandra Dowling. She'll still face more than a dozen charges by the county. Dowling ran the Pappas schools for homeless children. The county suspects her of mishandling district money. She maintains she didn't engage in illegal activity.

Larry Lemmons:
A study released today by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism concludes that opposition from talk Radio had a lot to do with killing immigration reform. Last week the Rocky Mountain poll showed Arizona's senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl slipping in their favorable rating. Much of that was attributed to their support of the senate's failed immigration reform legislation. Joining us now here in the studio to talk about that and more is the congressman from the third district, republican John Shadegg. Thank you for coming down and talking with us.

Congressman John Shadegg:
My pleasure.

Larry Lemmons:
One of the things when the senate immigration bill went down, what you were talking about is the part you played in the House to help it go down. Could you talk about what the 25 signature thing was all about?

Congresman John Shadegg:
Sure, I believe we need to reform our immigration laws. I think it's very important to do that I even support a guest Worker program but we are now on the republican side in the Minority. Now, in the house -- so our ability to influence legislation is quite minimal. A group of us on the house side became concerned if the senate Bill passed, there was at least a good chance since the President had announced woe sign it that it would be put on the Floor for an up-or-down vote with no amendments and no Opportunity for us to change the bill at all. Indeed, that's happened with several pieces of legislation already this year. So we said how do we affect this? How do we play a role in the process? The idea struck a group of us, actually just a couple of us came Up with the idea to begin with that we had the right to Circulate a petition and right republicans in the house -- what's called a republican conference -- to meet, discuss the Issue and if they choose, take a position. In this case, we wanted to get house republicans on record as Concerned about as many of us were a number of the provisions in That bill that we thought were difficult to enforce, the federal Government wasn't ready to enforce them, and I think would have caused a serious problem. I think the bill gave so much procedural due process to illegal Immigrants that we wouldn't have ever deported anyone had it Become law. And so we circulated the petition. 25 people signed it. That's the requirement under our rules. That forced our leaders to then hold a meeting which we did. We discussed the bill. Then we passed a resolution saying that -- and actually the original resolution which I wrote simply said we disapproved of It in its current form and then that we wanted the opportunity, If the bill came over from the senate, to be able to amend it. To have it go through the hearing process on the house side and allow we to offer amendments and then offer floor amendments that got paired down by our leadership to where we simply disapprove of it, period, and that's the resolution that passed.

Larry Lemmons:
Was it then sort of like a way for any Senator who might have been sitting on the fence would see that resolution and say well, even if we were to say ok, we're going to pass this, it's going to go down in the House?

Congressman John Shadegg:
Absolutely. I think it had an effect in the senate. I was told it had an effect in the senate. Senators said, why should we vote for this if it won't pass in the house? We stand election every two years. They stand election every six years. I would argue the body more in touch with the American public with our constituents back home is the house. It was a way for us to get on record and say what we're hearing back home is that Americans don't like this bill. So we went on record. And I think it affected -- how much, I don't know, but I think it affected the senate debate on the bill.

Larry Lemmons:
As I was saying in the lead into this, talk radio had a lot to do with that also. Lou Dobbs and other persons, there really was a great wave against the immigration bill in the first place. As you said, you probably represented that. It's interesting how in the Republican Party, here you had someone like John McCain and Jon Kyl on board for this Immigration bill. Then you had quite a few Republicans, I don't know, more conservative if that's how you want to label them --

Congressman John Shadegg:
I don't like using "conservative" or "liberal" in the context. I support immigration reform. I'd like to see us enact a guest worker program. I think what's happened so far is we've had an extreme house Bill which passed a year ago that was almost enforcement only. And I think that bill was seen by the American people as Unworkable and compassionate. We've seen the other end of the spectrum, an amnesty bill come Out of the senate. You've seen two extremes now being rejected by the members of congress that represent the people of this nation. I think now we can move to a middle ground. I don't think it's uncommon on an issue of this type for each extreme of the debate to move their initiative first, and then as you've watched the legislative process here in Arizona move to a middle ground, move to reasonable legislation. Senator Kyl and McCain say they favor a better immigration bill. Both have learned lessons from the debate. I'm hopeful we can move legislation yet this year.

Larry Lemmons:
How much do you think this hurt Senator McCain in his presidential bid?

Congressman John Shadegg:
I don't buy the argument that it did. John McCain has always been an independent thinker. And some people here in Arizona are very angry about it and about him, but I think that moving that issue off stage, making it not the primary issue, letting him focus back on his major Focus. I'm supporting John McCain enthusiastically for the presidency. He's the right candidate for our party. He's demonstrated courage and independent thought throughout his Career. I believe although this campaign started extremely earlier, much earlier than any other campaign in history, I think there's time for senator McCain to come forward. He's running neck in neck in Iowa and other places so I don't Think it was all that damaging to his position. For one thing, he's now been able to come out and say, look, I Favor dealing with some of these enforcement issues that the More than people are concerned about.

Larry Lemmons:
There was quite a backlash for Senator Jon Kyl as well. I think it was very surprising that a lot of grassroots people here in Arizona were sending e-mails back-and-forth condemning Jon Kyl for that.

Congressman John Shadegg;
There was. Jon's position was in the minority, you have to do what you can to try to affect the legislation. I think he felt with the president behind the bill, some bill was going to pass and that he needed to do what he thought he could to make that bill better. I don't fault him for that I think that's his choice. At the end of the day, I don't think that's where the American People were or are. Um, but this is a very divisive issue. This is an issue that divides people. Like I said, I don't like to call it "conservative" or "liberal." I know many business people in Arizona that are in desperate need of workers. I chat about this with my family members. I have a brother in the construction business. He's on both sides of the issue. It's a tough issue. The American people are compassionate about people that have been brought here. They're also concerned about their jobs and about the influence of people that perhaps are not deeply engrained in this culture. I think we can work our way through this issue and find solutions.

Larry Lemmons:
Currently there's a movement towards the demand side. Here we passed an employer sanctions bill, and, of course, Federal Immigration policy recently. Homeland security chief Chertoff and Gutierrez, the Commerce secretary, have announced this no-match policy. Now, can you talk a little bit about that in terms of if a worker's social security number doesn't match, an employer has a certain outline to follow which ultimately could lead to termination?

Congressman John Shadegg:
I think it's fascinating that the White House has now come forward and said, there's a whole lot of things we can do under the current law. One is the new no-match policy. But it's one of a long list of the administration saying it can do to enforce current law and is willing to do. Up until now, I've had -- and I think Americans should have -- a Lot of sympathy for an employer who cannot discern whether or not a given applicant is illegally in the country, because they would submit the information to social security, they get a letter back saying there's no match, there was no requirement for them to do more and quite frankly, not much of an avenue for them to do more so the federal government, I think, is complicitous and failed in its duty, not only to secure the border but also to make it possible for employers to figure out who is and who is not here lawfully. They're now talking about making real steps. I think that's a huge amount of good will they're expressing in order to gain the trust that congress needs to pass legislation. So I think it's a step in the right direction it somewhat pales the legislation here in Arizona, though I think that legislation goes too far in its penalties.

Larry Lemmons:
Do you like the basic pilot program? There's been criticism of that that it's not really that effective.

Congressman John Shadegg:
I've said a long time ago in a post-9/11 world, we need Identification for all Americans so we can figure out who is in this country lawfully, whether they're citizens, guest workers or here on a student visa. We need to be able to discern who is here lawfully and who is not. I believe in a post-9/11 world, that's essential for our national security. Right now, we don't have that kind of identification system. Senator Kyl's new enforcement bill tries to create that. It creates more mechanisms for us to be able to verify who is here. I think that's the right direction to go. I think it's essential not just to deal with the immigration problem, in terms of employment and their affect on our work fdorce here in the country but on our national security.

Larry Lemmons:
We've only got about 30 seconds. Can you tell us a little bit about what is coming up in terms of Immigration legislation perhaps in the House?

Congressman John Shadegg:
Well, in the house, we're in a tough spot, because Republicans are in the minority. We can't force a bill to the floor. Nancy Pelosi is saying probably not going to come up. Indeed, many democratic leaders are saying no legislation at All. On the senate side, they have the ability to force a bill onto the floor. It can't actually get a vote on it. But they can have an hours' long debate. I think once a week, every week that the senate is in session, they can have this debate to try to force the majority to bring up a bill. I understand that a number of senators that I know who did not like the senate immigration bill will pursue that avenue to try to move an immigration bill yet this year.

Larry Lemmons:
Congressman John Shadegg, thank you for dropping by and paying us a visit.

Congressman John Shadegg:
My pleasure.

Larry Lemmons:
Every Monday evening, we feature two political experts going One-on-one on issues that affect the state. Tonight, talking about employer sanctions and more, a political Consultant with Tequida and Gutierrez, John Loredo, and the State house republican spokesperson, Barrett Marson.

Barrett Marson:
Illegal immigration say hot topic. We're seeing the new ratifications of the new work enforcement Law. People are concerned about the potential of increase in identity Theft. A lot of people are concerned about this. You know, right now, Arizona leads the nation in identity theft. But, you know, talking to people, you know, there's identity Theft out there. Kids, I'm sure growing up, you knew kids who had fake i.d.s to Get liquor. I did. I never had any. Don't worry.

John Loredo:
You are Republican --

Barrett Marson:
So we don't change our laws so there's no need to get a fake ID. It's the same thing here. This is about enforcement of our laws and about keeping illegals Out of Arizona. And so when we clamp down, the state clamps down on that, and, Sure, people will always try to find a way to get around laws, But it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the laws on the back to Help protect the residents of Arizona.

John Loredo:
Sure, it's an issue that goes back quite a long time. One of the proposals out there was to allow people who are here Undocumented to become documented and get state of Arizona I.D. Cards, that way, they wouldn't have to go around stealing other People's identity. That is something that's been shot down of late. I think the real issue with employer sanctions once again, it goes back to the loss of jobs. This plan wasn't very well thought out. There are a ton of different ramifications coming down the line.

Barrett Marson:
John, the only jobs that'll be lost are the ones by the Illegal --

John Loredo:
Illegal immigrants?

Barrett Marson:
Well, it's only true if your boss is knowingly -- remember, it's a very high standard. A whole lot of people say, one mistake or two mistakes. That's not true.

John Loredo:
It's a loophole?

Barrett Marson:
It's not a loophole. It's knowingly. It's a very high standard. Once you reach that standard, businesses should have -- you know, a business owner and businesses should have a penalty. Money laundering is illegal. You can lose your license for money laundering. Your business could shut down. We don't excuse money laundering by a business just because other people will lose their jobs. And so this is all about just following the law. Most businesses out there will never be impacted by this law, because they already hire legal residents and do the correct checks.

John Loredo:
Depends what the industry is. I mean, quite clearly, there are a lot of industries that are outraged about this. Agriculture, the housing industry, meat packing, you name it these are folks that rely on undocumented immigration workers and without those workers, they go under.

Barrett Marson:
Well, and you're right. I mean, they rely on the cheap, illegal labor. But we shouldn't reward them by giving them that cheap illegal Labor. So --

John Loredo:
Sure. Um, another issue, Barrett, is pretty hot and heavy right now is Sheriff Joe's racial profiling hotline. If you have someone harassed, pick up the phone and call Sheriff Joe. What do you think about that? It's really picking up steam at this point.

Barrett Marson:
I don't know if it's picking up steam, but what you have here is just a frustration about illegal immigration. I mean, throughout all of soap we have an issue here of illegal Immigration. This is an outlet for people to report, you know, people whom they believe are illegal. I know you like to say it's "racial profiling" but, you know, in fact I think sheriff Joe got a tip that led to a murder scene last week. And so it's -- I know you -- some people like you like to say it's a racial profiling thing but really this is just another way people can vent their frustration at illegal immigration. Not legal immigration but illegal immigration.

John Loredo:
In reality, the majority of violent crime in this county and State aren't committed by illegal immigrants. It's committed by white males. If Sheriff Joe was really that concerned about violent crime in the society, maybe should he start a hotline for them?

Barrett Marson:
We do have a hotline though --

John Loredo:
Get the real crime, violent crime instead of being a farm Grower and picking fruits and vegetables and framing people's Houses.

Barrett Marson:
John, we do have -- we have crime stoppers, I don't hear anyone complaining about crime stoppers that hotline. We have a hotline for criminals and this one is specifically for Illegals. I don't know if he's actually picked up any illegals. I've not seen the numbers yet, but -- and this is for people essentially to vent. This is really an issue. It really is a problem.

John Loredo:
At some point, we're going to get down to the heart of the Matter which is whether or not, you know, people like sheriff Joe actually want to go through the process of setting up hotlines to stop violent crime in this county which he does a very poor job of controlling.

Barrett Marson:
Let me move onto another problem in this state, and that's a Fiscal problem, it's a money problem. We're spending a little bit more than we've got right now and, Um, you know, the speaker going to asset, you know, -- try to See if the joint legislation committee could look at ways -- where can the state of Arizona cut back a little without impacting needed services for our residents. We're $225 million in the hole and we're only a month and a half into the new fiscal year. We'll have issues potentially if we don't start belt tightening right now.

John Loredo:
And I think the issue is starting last year, I mean, during The budget process, it was forecasted there'd be a shortfall if you did $600 million in tax breaks. This is no surprise. If anything, this is the result of building a structural deficit Into your budget where you know that at some point -- maybe not This year but this year and the year after, you'll hit a Downfall and you won't have the money you need to to pay for Critical services. This was no accident. This was built into the budget.

Barrett Marson:
John, I didn't see you complain about structural deficit when Budgets were rising 15\% or 20\%. When you were a minority leader -- and that was what? Only four years ago. The budget was what? $6 billion and now it's about $11 billion!

John Loredo:
And those budgets were raised with a republican majority in Office.

Barrett Marson:
Oh and a democratic governor. There was a democratic governor that demanded increased Spending. The point -- $6 billion! This is not a tax cut problem, this is a spending problem. We nearly doubled the budget in five years.

John Loredo:
When you don't have the money to give for tax cuts, that's Money that would otherwise be used for critical services. So when you built in a structural deficit into your budget, you guarantee that you're going to fall short in the future and here we are. So you've got $600 million in tax cuts that you can eliminate from in order to balance that budget.

Barrett Marson:
I think there's a way you define "critical needs of the State." You define it as corporate welfare in science foundation of Arizona and things like that whereas republicans define it as, first of all, public safety and giving people their money back. All right? Well, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. It was good seeing you tonight.

John Loredo:
You too.

Larry Lemmons:
The city of phoenix, aps and srp are encouraging us to use Cfl's or compact fluorescent lamps. You've probably seen these unusual looking bulbs in the stores. They save money and energy. In fact, through the aps energy program, more than three million of these bulbs have already been sold saving more than $90 Million in energy costs. Joining us now to tell us more about these bulbs, the marketing and relationship manager at SRP, Heidi Schaefer. Why are these better than regular bulbs?

Heidi Schaefer:
These come in a multitude of shapes. They come in a larger variety of light output from yellow to all the way to bright white like you used to with Incandescent. It's a simple, cost-effective way for each of us to help our Environment.

Larry Lemmons:
You might show, when people go to the store, first of all, they need to be looking for the energy star thing, right? Because there are the cheap ones that aren't as good.

Heidi Schaefer:
Right, don't get one that doesn't say energy star. Energy star comes with a certainty of warranty. They can last up to 10 times longer than an incandescent lightbulbs. Don't get the cheap reproductions that aren't certified by Energy star. Look in the store for energy star. You need to be a knowledgeable consumer when it comes to CFL's, because you can't just shift the same wattage. A watt from a CFL is different from a wattage from an Incandescent. SRP has put out our power-wide solutions magazine. For those of that you don't receive it it'll be on our web site, www.srpnet.com/cfl. In there are charts for you to understand how to choose the Right CFL for your usage.

Larry Lemmons:
Because as you told me before we went on here, just because you want a 100-watt bulb right now doesn't mean there's a 100-watt Bulb in the CFL version, right?

Heidi Schaefer:
Significantly different. Exactly. These don't come up to that kind of wattage. You need to be an educated consumer to be a happy consumer when It comes to CFL's.

Larry Lemmons:
These are more expensive. Some people would complain about the fact that they're more expensive but on the other hand they last longer, what's the Ratio?

Heidi Schaefer:
It's 30\% difference in the payback. They do last longer. In fact, if you go to an ace hardware store, they are partners with the energy. They'll provide a free CFL for a $20 purchase.

Larry Lemmons: Now, city of phoenix is involved in this as well. What are they doing?

Heidi Schaefer: City of phoenix has pledged out in all of our bills that went Out to our phoenix residents, mayor Gordon added his requests For all of the citizens to pledge they'll change incandescent to CFL and, in fact, that's happening all across the region in the Month of august and September, SRP talked to the residents to Change out the incandescent light bulbs. Please take the pledge. We'd love to see 100,000 customers sign on and take the pledge.

Larry Lemmons: Of course, APS is involved as well. Can't leave them out.

Heidi Schaefer: Don't leave APS out. They're our partners in this we're thrilled to be able to Partner with them and with all the cities.

Larry Lemmons: There's mercury in these light bulbs. Disposing of them is a special thing. Talk about that.

Heidi Schaefer: Yeah, that's a very important thing. Again, back to the education, there's a small amount of mercury about the amount that would fit on the tip of a ball point pen. Still, it's mercury. It needs to be treated as solid waste. When you dispose of them, dispose of them on the solid waste Sites in the city. On our web site, we have links to give you instructions on how to properly dispose of spent CFL light bulbs.

Larry Lemmons: If they break, there's a special procedure to follow if that happens?

Heidi Schaefer: Yes, there's a special procedure because of the mercury that's in there. You need to handle it very carefully. You need to bag it very carefully. Again, on our web site, it'll give you the specific instructions should you accidentally break one of these and you need to Dispose of a broken CFL.

Larry Lemmons:
We've only got 30 seconds. What's the web site.

Heidi Schaefer:
www.srpnet.com/cfl.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Heidi Schaefer.

Heidi Schaefer:
Thank you.

Merry Lucero:
On this "Horizon" special, walking, eating safely, being Sure to cook ground beef thoroughly, see if you're at risk for Getting diabetes by taking a quick on-line test and helpful Information for allergy sufferers Tuesday at 7:00 on "Horizon."

Larry Lemmons:
Wednesday, we'll examine health care coverage as the topic Of the Arizona town hall. Thursday, a special edition of "Horizon" looking at things you Might be surprised are made in Arizona! Friday, join us for the journalists' roundtable. Thank you very much for joining us on this Monday edition of "Horizon." Join us every day this week for something new. We're always going to surprise you. Thanks very much for just tuning in just because you're just Surfing around. I'm Larry Lemmons, have a good night.

Rep. John Shadegg


  • Third District U.S. Congressman John Shadegg will talk about illegal immigration, healthcare and the political wrangling in Congress.
Guests:
  • John Shadegg - U. S Congressman
  • John Loredo - Tequida and Gutierrez
  • Barrett Marson - State House Republican Spokesperson


View Transcript
Larry Lemmons:
Tonight on "Horizon" a conversation with Congressman John Shadegg. Two political types go head-to-head on issues that affect Arizona in our regular Monday feature "one-on-one." And let there be light! Longer, lasting light… our sustainability segment next on "horizon."

Larry Lemmons:
Good evening. Thanks for joining us tonight on "horizon." I'm Larry Lemmons. Two criminal charges were dismissed today for former Maricopa County school superintendent Sandra Dowling. She'll still face more than a dozen charges by the county. Dowling ran the Pappas schools for homeless children. The county suspects her of mishandling district money. She maintains she didn't engage in illegal activity.

Larry Lemmons:
A study released today by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism concludes that opposition from talk Radio had a lot to do with killing immigration reform. Last week the Rocky Mountain poll showed Arizona's senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl slipping in their favorable rating. Much of that was attributed to their support of the senate's failed immigration reform legislation. Joining us now here in the studio to talk about that and more is the congressman from the third district, republican John Shadegg. Thank you for coming down and talking with us.

Congressman John Shadegg:
My pleasure.

Larry Lemmons:
One of the things when the senate immigration bill went down, what you were talking about is the part you played in the House to help it go down. Could you talk about what the 25 signature thing was all about?

Congresman John Shadegg:
Sure, I believe we need to reform our immigration laws. I think it's very important to do that I even support a guest Worker program but we are now on the republican side in the Minority. Now, in the house -- so our ability to influence legislation is quite minimal. A group of us on the house side became concerned if the senate Bill passed, there was at least a good chance since the President had announced woe sign it that it would be put on the Floor for an up-or-down vote with no amendments and no Opportunity for us to change the bill at all. Indeed, that's happened with several pieces of legislation already this year. So we said how do we affect this? How do we play a role in the process? The idea struck a group of us, actually just a couple of us came Up with the idea to begin with that we had the right to Circulate a petition and right republicans in the house -- what's called a republican conference -- to meet, discuss the Issue and if they choose, take a position. In this case, we wanted to get house republicans on record as Concerned about as many of us were a number of the provisions in That bill that we thought were difficult to enforce, the federal Government wasn't ready to enforce them, and I think would have caused a serious problem. I think the bill gave so much procedural due process to illegal Immigrants that we wouldn't have ever deported anyone had it Become law. And so we circulated the petition. 25 people signed it. That's the requirement under our rules. That forced our leaders to then hold a meeting which we did. We discussed the bill. Then we passed a resolution saying that -- and actually the original resolution which I wrote simply said we disapproved of It in its current form and then that we wanted the opportunity, If the bill came over from the senate, to be able to amend it. To have it go through the hearing process on the house side and allow we to offer amendments and then offer floor amendments that got paired down by our leadership to where we simply disapprove of it, period, and that's the resolution that passed.

Larry Lemmons:
Was it then sort of like a way for any Senator who might have been sitting on the fence would see that resolution and say well, even if we were to say ok, we're going to pass this, it's going to go down in the House?

Congressman John Shadegg:
Absolutely. I think it had an effect in the senate. I was told it had an effect in the senate. Senators said, why should we vote for this if it won't pass in the house? We stand election every two years. They stand election every six years. I would argue the body more in touch with the American public with our constituents back home is the house. It was a way for us to get on record and say what we're hearing back home is that Americans don't like this bill. So we went on record. And I think it affected -- how much, I don't know, but I think it affected the senate debate on the bill.

Larry Lemmons:
As I was saying in the lead into this, talk radio had a lot to do with that also. Lou Dobbs and other persons, there really was a great wave against the immigration bill in the first place. As you said, you probably represented that. It's interesting how in the Republican Party, here you had someone like John McCain and Jon Kyl on board for this Immigration bill. Then you had quite a few Republicans, I don't know, more conservative if that's how you want to label them --

Congressman John Shadegg:
I don't like using "conservative" or "liberal" in the context. I support immigration reform. I'd like to see us enact a guest worker program. I think what's happened so far is we've had an extreme house Bill which passed a year ago that was almost enforcement only. And I think that bill was seen by the American people as Unworkable and compassionate. We've seen the other end of the spectrum, an amnesty bill come Out of the senate. You've seen two extremes now being rejected by the members of congress that represent the people of this nation. I think now we can move to a middle ground. I don't think it's uncommon on an issue of this type for each extreme of the debate to move their initiative first, and then as you've watched the legislative process here in Arizona move to a middle ground, move to reasonable legislation. Senator Kyl and McCain say they favor a better immigration bill. Both have learned lessons from the debate. I'm hopeful we can move legislation yet this year.

Larry Lemmons:
How much do you think this hurt Senator McCain in his presidential bid?

Congressman John Shadegg:
I don't buy the argument that it did. John McCain has always been an independent thinker. And some people here in Arizona are very angry about it and about him, but I think that moving that issue off stage, making it not the primary issue, letting him focus back on his major Focus. I'm supporting John McCain enthusiastically for the presidency. He's the right candidate for our party. He's demonstrated courage and independent thought throughout his Career. I believe although this campaign started extremely earlier, much earlier than any other campaign in history, I think there's time for senator McCain to come forward. He's running neck in neck in Iowa and other places so I don't Think it was all that damaging to his position. For one thing, he's now been able to come out and say, look, I Favor dealing with some of these enforcement issues that the More than people are concerned about.

Larry Lemmons:
There was quite a backlash for Senator Jon Kyl as well. I think it was very surprising that a lot of grassroots people here in Arizona were sending e-mails back-and-forth condemning Jon Kyl for that.

Congressman John Shadegg;
There was. Jon's position was in the minority, you have to do what you can to try to affect the legislation. I think he felt with the president behind the bill, some bill was going to pass and that he needed to do what he thought he could to make that bill better. I don't fault him for that I think that's his choice. At the end of the day, I don't think that's where the American People were or are. Um, but this is a very divisive issue. This is an issue that divides people. Like I said, I don't like to call it "conservative" or "liberal." I know many business people in Arizona that are in desperate need of workers. I chat about this with my family members. I have a brother in the construction business. He's on both sides of the issue. It's a tough issue. The American people are compassionate about people that have been brought here. They're also concerned about their jobs and about the influence of people that perhaps are not deeply engrained in this culture. I think we can work our way through this issue and find solutions.

Larry Lemmons:
Currently there's a movement towards the demand side. Here we passed an employer sanctions bill, and, of course, Federal Immigration policy recently. Homeland security chief Chertoff and Gutierrez, the Commerce secretary, have announced this no-match policy. Now, can you talk a little bit about that in terms of if a worker's social security number doesn't match, an employer has a certain outline to follow which ultimately could lead to termination?

Congressman John Shadegg:
I think it's fascinating that the White House has now come forward and said, there's a whole lot of things we can do under the current law. One is the new no-match policy. But it's one of a long list of the administration saying it can do to enforce current law and is willing to do. Up until now, I've had -- and I think Americans should have -- a Lot of sympathy for an employer who cannot discern whether or not a given applicant is illegally in the country, because they would submit the information to social security, they get a letter back saying there's no match, there was no requirement for them to do more and quite frankly, not much of an avenue for them to do more so the federal government, I think, is complicitous and failed in its duty, not only to secure the border but also to make it possible for employers to figure out who is and who is not here lawfully. They're now talking about making real steps. I think that's a huge amount of good will they're expressing in order to gain the trust that congress needs to pass legislation. So I think it's a step in the right direction it somewhat pales the legislation here in Arizona, though I think that legislation goes too far in its penalties.

Larry Lemmons:
Do you like the basic pilot program? There's been criticism of that that it's not really that effective.

Congressman John Shadegg:
I've said a long time ago in a post-9/11 world, we need Identification for all Americans so we can figure out who is in this country lawfully, whether they're citizens, guest workers or here on a student visa. We need to be able to discern who is here lawfully and who is not. I believe in a post-9/11 world, that's essential for our national security. Right now, we don't have that kind of identification system. Senator Kyl's new enforcement bill tries to create that. It creates more mechanisms for us to be able to verify who is here. I think that's the right direction to go. I think it's essential not just to deal with the immigration problem, in terms of employment and their affect on our work fdorce here in the country but on our national security.

Larry Lemmons:
We've only got about 30 seconds. Can you tell us a little bit about what is coming up in terms of Immigration legislation perhaps in the House?

Congressman John Shadegg:
Well, in the house, we're in a tough spot, because Republicans are in the minority. We can't force a bill to the floor. Nancy Pelosi is saying probably not going to come up. Indeed, many democratic leaders are saying no legislation at All. On the senate side, they have the ability to force a bill onto the floor. It can't actually get a vote on it. But they can have an hours' long debate. I think once a week, every week that the senate is in session, they can have this debate to try to force the majority to bring up a bill. I understand that a number of senators that I know who did not like the senate immigration bill will pursue that avenue to try to move an immigration bill yet this year.

Larry Lemmons:
Congressman John Shadegg, thank you for dropping by and paying us a visit.

Congressman John Shadegg:
My pleasure.

Larry Lemmons:
Every Monday evening, we feature two political experts going One-on-one on issues that affect the state. Tonight, talking about employer sanctions and more, a political Consultant with Tequida and Gutierrez, John Loredo, and the State house republican spokesperson, Barrett Marson.

Barrett Marson:
Illegal immigration say hot topic. We're seeing the new ratifications of the new work enforcement Law. People are concerned about the potential of increase in identity Theft. A lot of people are concerned about this. You know, right now, Arizona leads the nation in identity theft. But, you know, talking to people, you know, there's identity Theft out there. Kids, I'm sure growing up, you knew kids who had fake i.d.s to Get liquor. I did. I never had any. Don't worry.

John Loredo:
You are Republican --

Barrett Marson:
So we don't change our laws so there's no need to get a fake ID. It's the same thing here. This is about enforcement of our laws and about keeping illegals Out of Arizona. And so when we clamp down, the state clamps down on that, and, Sure, people will always try to find a way to get around laws, But it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the laws on the back to Help protect the residents of Arizona.

John Loredo:
Sure, it's an issue that goes back quite a long time. One of the proposals out there was to allow people who are here Undocumented to become documented and get state of Arizona I.D. Cards, that way, they wouldn't have to go around stealing other People's identity. That is something that's been shot down of late. I think the real issue with employer sanctions once again, it goes back to the loss of jobs. This plan wasn't very well thought out. There are a ton of different ramifications coming down the line.

Barrett Marson:
John, the only jobs that'll be lost are the ones by the Illegal --

John Loredo:
Illegal immigrants?

Barrett Marson:
Well, it's only true if your boss is knowingly -- remember, it's a very high standard. A whole lot of people say, one mistake or two mistakes. That's not true.

John Loredo:
It's a loophole?

Barrett Marson:
It's not a loophole. It's knowingly. It's a very high standard. Once you reach that standard, businesses should have -- you know, a business owner and businesses should have a penalty. Money laundering is illegal. You can lose your license for money laundering. Your business could shut down. We don't excuse money laundering by a business just because other people will lose their jobs. And so this is all about just following the law. Most businesses out there will never be impacted by this law, because they already hire legal residents and do the correct checks.

John Loredo:
Depends what the industry is. I mean, quite clearly, there are a lot of industries that are outraged about this. Agriculture, the housing industry, meat packing, you name it these are folks that rely on undocumented immigration workers and without those workers, they go under.

Barrett Marson:
Well, and you're right. I mean, they rely on the cheap, illegal labor. But we shouldn't reward them by giving them that cheap illegal Labor. So --

John Loredo:
Sure. Um, another issue, Barrett, is pretty hot and heavy right now is Sheriff Joe's racial profiling hotline. If you have someone harassed, pick up the phone and call Sheriff Joe. What do you think about that? It's really picking up steam at this point.

Barrett Marson:
I don't know if it's picking up steam, but what you have here is just a frustration about illegal immigration. I mean, throughout all of soap we have an issue here of illegal Immigration. This is an outlet for people to report, you know, people whom they believe are illegal. I know you like to say it's "racial profiling" but, you know, in fact I think sheriff Joe got a tip that led to a murder scene last week. And so it's -- I know you -- some people like you like to say it's a racial profiling thing but really this is just another way people can vent their frustration at illegal immigration. Not legal immigration but illegal immigration.

John Loredo:
In reality, the majority of violent crime in this county and State aren't committed by illegal immigrants. It's committed by white males. If Sheriff Joe was really that concerned about violent crime in the society, maybe should he start a hotline for them?

Barrett Marson:
We do have a hotline though --

John Loredo:
Get the real crime, violent crime instead of being a farm Grower and picking fruits and vegetables and framing people's Houses.

Barrett Marson:
John, we do have -- we have crime stoppers, I don't hear anyone complaining about crime stoppers that hotline. We have a hotline for criminals and this one is specifically for Illegals. I don't know if he's actually picked up any illegals. I've not seen the numbers yet, but -- and this is for people essentially to vent. This is really an issue. It really is a problem.

John Loredo:
At some point, we're going to get down to the heart of the Matter which is whether or not, you know, people like sheriff Joe actually want to go through the process of setting up hotlines to stop violent crime in this county which he does a very poor job of controlling.

Barrett Marson:
Let me move onto another problem in this state, and that's a Fiscal problem, it's a money problem. We're spending a little bit more than we've got right now and, Um, you know, the speaker going to asset, you know, -- try to See if the joint legislation committee could look at ways -- where can the state of Arizona cut back a little without impacting needed services for our residents. We're $225 million in the hole and we're only a month and a half into the new fiscal year. We'll have issues potentially if we don't start belt tightening right now.

John Loredo:
And I think the issue is starting last year, I mean, during The budget process, it was forecasted there'd be a shortfall if you did $600 million in tax breaks. This is no surprise. If anything, this is the result of building a structural deficit Into your budget where you know that at some point -- maybe not This year but this year and the year after, you'll hit a Downfall and you won't have the money you need to to pay for Critical services. This was no accident. This was built into the budget.

Barrett Marson:
John, I didn't see you complain about structural deficit when Budgets were rising 15\% or 20\%. When you were a minority leader -- and that was what? Only four years ago. The budget was what? $6 billion and now it's about $11 billion!

John Loredo:
And those budgets were raised with a republican majority in Office.

Barrett Marson:
Oh and a democratic governor. There was a democratic governor that demanded increased Spending. The point -- $6 billion! This is not a tax cut problem, this is a spending problem. We nearly doubled the budget in five years.

John Loredo:
When you don't have the money to give for tax cuts, that's Money that would otherwise be used for critical services. So when you built in a structural deficit into your budget, you guarantee that you're going to fall short in the future and here we are. So you've got $600 million in tax cuts that you can eliminate from in order to balance that budget.

Barrett Marson:
I think there's a way you define "critical needs of the State." You define it as corporate welfare in science foundation of Arizona and things like that whereas republicans define it as, first of all, public safety and giving people their money back. All right? Well, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. It was good seeing you tonight.

John Loredo:
You too.

Larry Lemmons:
The city of phoenix, aps and srp are encouraging us to use Cfl's or compact fluorescent lamps. You've probably seen these unusual looking bulbs in the stores. They save money and energy. In fact, through the aps energy program, more than three million of these bulbs have already been sold saving more than $90 Million in energy costs. Joining us now to tell us more about these bulbs, the marketing and relationship manager at SRP, Heidi Schaefer. Why are these better than regular bulbs?

Heidi Schaefer:
These come in a multitude of shapes. They come in a larger variety of light output from yellow to all the way to bright white like you used to with Incandescent. It's a simple, cost-effective way for each of us to help our Environment.

Larry Lemmons:
You might show, when people go to the store, first of all, they need to be looking for the energy star thing, right? Because there are the cheap ones that aren't as good.

Heidi Schaefer:
Right, don't get one that doesn't say energy star. Energy star comes with a certainty of warranty. They can last up to 10 times longer than an incandescent lightbulbs. Don't get the cheap reproductions that aren't certified by Energy star. Look in the store for energy star. You need to be a knowledgeable consumer when it comes to CFL's, because you can't just shift the same wattage. A watt from a CFL is different from a wattage from an Incandescent. SRP has put out our power-wide solutions magazine. For those of that you don't receive it it'll be on our web site, www.srpnet.com/cfl. In there are charts for you to understand how to choose the Right CFL for your usage.

Larry Lemmons:
Because as you told me before we went on here, just because you want a 100-watt bulb right now doesn't mean there's a 100-watt Bulb in the CFL version, right?

Heidi Schaefer:
Significantly different. Exactly. These don't come up to that kind of wattage. You need to be an educated consumer to be a happy consumer when It comes to CFL's.

Larry Lemmons:
These are more expensive. Some people would complain about the fact that they're more expensive but on the other hand they last longer, what's the Ratio?

Heidi Schaefer:
It's 30\% difference in the payback. They do last longer. In fact, if you go to an ace hardware store, they are partners with the energy. They'll provide a free CFL for a $20 purchase.

Larry Lemmons: Now, city of phoenix is involved in this as well. What are they doing?

Heidi Schaefer: City of phoenix has pledged out in all of our bills that went Out to our phoenix residents, mayor Gordon added his requests For all of the citizens to pledge they'll change incandescent to CFL and, in fact, that's happening all across the region in the Month of august and September, SRP talked to the residents to Change out the incandescent light bulbs. Please take the pledge. We'd love to see 100,000 customers sign on and take the pledge.

Larry Lemmons: Of course, APS is involved as well. Can't leave them out.

Heidi Schaefer: Don't leave APS out. They're our partners in this we're thrilled to be able to Partner with them and with all the cities.

Larry Lemmons: There's mercury in these light bulbs. Disposing of them is a special thing. Talk about that.

Heidi Schaefer: Yeah, that's a very important thing. Again, back to the education, there's a small amount of mercury about the amount that would fit on the tip of a ball point pen. Still, it's mercury. It needs to be treated as solid waste. When you dispose of them, dispose of them on the solid waste Sites in the city. On our web site, we have links to give you instructions on how to properly dispose of spent CFL light bulbs.

Larry Lemmons: If they break, there's a special procedure to follow if that happens?

Heidi Schaefer: Yes, there's a special procedure because of the mercury that's in there. You need to handle it very carefully. You need to bag it very carefully. Again, on our web site, it'll give you the specific instructions should you accidentally break one of these and you need to Dispose of a broken CFL.

Larry Lemmons:
We've only got 30 seconds. What's the web site.

Heidi Schaefer:
www.srpnet.com/cfl.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Heidi Schaefer.

Heidi Schaefer:
Thank you.

Merry Lucero:
On this "Horizon" special, walking, eating safely, being Sure to cook ground beef thoroughly, see if you're at risk for Getting diabetes by taking a quick on-line test and helpful Information for allergy sufferers Tuesday at 7:00 on "Horizon."

Larry Lemmons:
Wednesday, we'll examine health care coverage as the topic Of the Arizona town hall. Thursday, a special edition of "Horizon" looking at things you Might be surprised are made in Arizona! Friday, join us for the journalists' roundtable. Thank you very much for joining us on this Monday edition of "Horizon." Join us every day this week for something new. We're always going to surprise you. Thanks very much for just tuning in just because you're just Surfing around. I'm Larry Lemmons, have a good night.

Sustainability


  • The City of Phoenix, SRP and APS are kicking off a campaign to encourage people to use compact fluorescent lamps, or CFL bulbs, which will save energy. Heidi Schaeffer of SRP will talk about the bulbs.
Guests:
  • John Shadegg - U. S Congressman
  • John Loredo - Tequida and Gutierrez
  • Barrett Marson - State House Republican Spokesperson
Category: Sustainability

View Transcript
Larry Lemmons:
Tonight on "Horizon" a conversation with Congressman John Shadegg. Two political types go head-to-head on issues that affect Arizona in our regular Monday feature "one-on-one." And let there be light! Longer, lasting light… our sustainability segment next on "horizon."

Larry Lemmons:
Good evening. Thanks for joining us tonight on "horizon." I'm Larry Lemmons. Two criminal charges were dismissed today for former Maricopa County school superintendent Sandra Dowling. She'll still face more than a dozen charges by the county. Dowling ran the Pappas schools for homeless children. The county suspects her of mishandling district money. She maintains she didn't engage in illegal activity.

Larry Lemmons:
A study released today by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism concludes that opposition from talk Radio had a lot to do with killing immigration reform. Last week the Rocky Mountain poll showed Arizona's senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl slipping in their favorable rating. Much of that was attributed to their support of the senate's failed immigration reform legislation. Joining us now here in the studio to talk about that and more is the congressman from the third district, republican John Shadegg. Thank you for coming down and talking with us.

Congressman John Shadegg:
My pleasure.

Larry Lemmons:
One of the things when the senate immigration bill went down, what you were talking about is the part you played in the House to help it go down. Could you talk about what the 25 signature thing was all about?

Congresman John Shadegg:
Sure, I believe we need to reform our immigration laws. I think it's very important to do that I even support a guest Worker program but we are now on the republican side in the Minority. Now, in the house -- so our ability to influence legislation is quite minimal. A group of us on the house side became concerned if the senate Bill passed, there was at least a good chance since the President had announced woe sign it that it would be put on the Floor for an up-or-down vote with no amendments and no Opportunity for us to change the bill at all. Indeed, that's happened with several pieces of legislation already this year. So we said how do we affect this? How do we play a role in the process? The idea struck a group of us, actually just a couple of us came Up with the idea to begin with that we had the right to Circulate a petition and right republicans in the house -- what's called a republican conference -- to meet, discuss the Issue and if they choose, take a position. In this case, we wanted to get house republicans on record as Concerned about as many of us were a number of the provisions in That bill that we thought were difficult to enforce, the federal Government wasn't ready to enforce them, and I think would have caused a serious problem. I think the bill gave so much procedural due process to illegal Immigrants that we wouldn't have ever deported anyone had it Become law. And so we circulated the petition. 25 people signed it. That's the requirement under our rules. That forced our leaders to then hold a meeting which we did. We discussed the bill. Then we passed a resolution saying that -- and actually the original resolution which I wrote simply said we disapproved of It in its current form and then that we wanted the opportunity, If the bill came over from the senate, to be able to amend it. To have it go through the hearing process on the house side and allow we to offer amendments and then offer floor amendments that got paired down by our leadership to where we simply disapprove of it, period, and that's the resolution that passed.

Larry Lemmons:
Was it then sort of like a way for any Senator who might have been sitting on the fence would see that resolution and say well, even if we were to say ok, we're going to pass this, it's going to go down in the House?

Congressman John Shadegg:
Absolutely. I think it had an effect in the senate. I was told it had an effect in the senate. Senators said, why should we vote for this if it won't pass in the house? We stand election every two years. They stand election every six years. I would argue the body more in touch with the American public with our constituents back home is the house. It was a way for us to get on record and say what we're hearing back home is that Americans don't like this bill. So we went on record. And I think it affected -- how much, I don't know, but I think it affected the senate debate on the bill.

Larry Lemmons:
As I was saying in the lead into this, talk radio had a lot to do with that also. Lou Dobbs and other persons, there really was a great wave against the immigration bill in the first place. As you said, you probably represented that. It's interesting how in the Republican Party, here you had someone like John McCain and Jon Kyl on board for this Immigration bill. Then you had quite a few Republicans, I don't know, more conservative if that's how you want to label them --

Congressman John Shadegg:
I don't like using "conservative" or "liberal" in the context. I support immigration reform. I'd like to see us enact a guest worker program. I think what's happened so far is we've had an extreme house Bill which passed a year ago that was almost enforcement only. And I think that bill was seen by the American people as Unworkable and compassionate. We've seen the other end of the spectrum, an amnesty bill come Out of the senate. You've seen two extremes now being rejected by the members of congress that represent the people of this nation. I think now we can move to a middle ground. I don't think it's uncommon on an issue of this type for each extreme of the debate to move their initiative first, and then as you've watched the legislative process here in Arizona move to a middle ground, move to reasonable legislation. Senator Kyl and McCain say they favor a better immigration bill. Both have learned lessons from the debate. I'm hopeful we can move legislation yet this year.

Larry Lemmons:
How much do you think this hurt Senator McCain in his presidential bid?

Congressman John Shadegg:
I don't buy the argument that it did. John McCain has always been an independent thinker. And some people here in Arizona are very angry about it and about him, but I think that moving that issue off stage, making it not the primary issue, letting him focus back on his major Focus. I'm supporting John McCain enthusiastically for the presidency. He's the right candidate for our party. He's demonstrated courage and independent thought throughout his Career. I believe although this campaign started extremely earlier, much earlier than any other campaign in history, I think there's time for senator McCain to come forward. He's running neck in neck in Iowa and other places so I don't Think it was all that damaging to his position. For one thing, he's now been able to come out and say, look, I Favor dealing with some of these enforcement issues that the More than people are concerned about.

Larry Lemmons:
There was quite a backlash for Senator Jon Kyl as well. I think it was very surprising that a lot of grassroots people here in Arizona were sending e-mails back-and-forth condemning Jon Kyl for that.

Congressman John Shadegg;
There was. Jon's position was in the minority, you have to do what you can to try to affect the legislation. I think he felt with the president behind the bill, some bill was going to pass and that he needed to do what he thought he could to make that bill better. I don't fault him for that I think that's his choice. At the end of the day, I don't think that's where the American People were or are. Um, but this is a very divisive issue. This is an issue that divides people. Like I said, I don't like to call it "conservative" or "liberal." I know many business people in Arizona that are in desperate need of workers. I chat about this with my family members. I have a brother in the construction business. He's on both sides of the issue. It's a tough issue. The American people are compassionate about people that have been brought here. They're also concerned about their jobs and about the influence of people that perhaps are not deeply engrained in this culture. I think we can work our way through this issue and find solutions.

Larry Lemmons:
Currently there's a movement towards the demand side. Here we passed an employer sanctions bill, and, of course, Federal Immigration policy recently. Homeland security chief Chertoff and Gutierrez, the Commerce secretary, have announced this no-match policy. Now, can you talk a little bit about that in terms of if a worker's social security number doesn't match, an employer has a certain outline to follow which ultimately could lead to termination?

Congressman John Shadegg:
I think it's fascinating that the White House has now come forward and said, there's a whole lot of things we can do under the current law. One is the new no-match policy. But it's one of a long list of the administration saying it can do to enforce current law and is willing to do. Up until now, I've had -- and I think Americans should have -- a Lot of sympathy for an employer who cannot discern whether or not a given applicant is illegally in the country, because they would submit the information to social security, they get a letter back saying there's no match, there was no requirement for them to do more and quite frankly, not much of an avenue for them to do more so the federal government, I think, is complicitous and failed in its duty, not only to secure the border but also to make it possible for employers to figure out who is and who is not here lawfully. They're now talking about making real steps. I think that's a huge amount of good will they're expressing in order to gain the trust that congress needs to pass legislation. So I think it's a step in the right direction it somewhat pales the legislation here in Arizona, though I think that legislation goes too far in its penalties.

Larry Lemmons:
Do you like the basic pilot program? There's been criticism of that that it's not really that effective.

Congressman John Shadegg:
I've said a long time ago in a post-9/11 world, we need Identification for all Americans so we can figure out who is in this country lawfully, whether they're citizens, guest workers or here on a student visa. We need to be able to discern who is here lawfully and who is not. I believe in a post-9/11 world, that's essential for our national security. Right now, we don't have that kind of identification system. Senator Kyl's new enforcement bill tries to create that. It creates more mechanisms for us to be able to verify who is here. I think that's the right direction to go. I think it's essential not just to deal with the immigration problem, in terms of employment and their affect on our work fdorce here in the country but on our national security.

Larry Lemmons:
We've only got about 30 seconds. Can you tell us a little bit about what is coming up in terms of Immigration legislation perhaps in the House?

Congressman John Shadegg:
Well, in the house, we're in a tough spot, because Republicans are in the minority. We can't force a bill to the floor. Nancy Pelosi is saying probably not going to come up. Indeed, many democratic leaders are saying no legislation at All. On the senate side, they have the ability to force a bill onto the floor. It can't actually get a vote on it. But they can have an hours' long debate. I think once a week, every week that the senate is in session, they can have this debate to try to force the majority to bring up a bill. I understand that a number of senators that I know who did not like the senate immigration bill will pursue that avenue to try to move an immigration bill yet this year.

Larry Lemmons:
Congressman John Shadegg, thank you for dropping by and paying us a visit.

Congressman John Shadegg:
My pleasure.

Larry Lemmons:
Every Monday evening, we feature two political experts going One-on-one on issues that affect the state. Tonight, talking about employer sanctions and more, a political Consultant with Tequida and Gutierrez, John Loredo, and the State house republican spokesperson, Barrett Marson.

Barrett Marson:
Illegal immigration say hot topic. We're seeing the new ratifications of the new work enforcement Law. People are concerned about the potential of increase in identity Theft. A lot of people are concerned about this. You know, right now, Arizona leads the nation in identity theft. But, you know, talking to people, you know, there's identity Theft out there. Kids, I'm sure growing up, you knew kids who had fake i.d.s to Get liquor. I did. I never had any. Don't worry.

John Loredo:
You are Republican --

Barrett Marson:
So we don't change our laws so there's no need to get a fake ID. It's the same thing here. This is about enforcement of our laws and about keeping illegals Out of Arizona. And so when we clamp down, the state clamps down on that, and, Sure, people will always try to find a way to get around laws, But it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the laws on the back to Help protect the residents of Arizona.

John Loredo:
Sure, it's an issue that goes back quite a long time. One of the proposals out there was to allow people who are here Undocumented to become documented and get state of Arizona I.D. Cards, that way, they wouldn't have to go around stealing other People's identity. That is something that's been shot down of late. I think the real issue with employer sanctions once again, it goes back to the loss of jobs. This plan wasn't very well thought out. There are a ton of different ramifications coming down the line.

Barrett Marson:
John, the only jobs that'll be lost are the ones by the Illegal --

John Loredo:
Illegal immigrants?

Barrett Marson:
Well, it's only true if your boss is knowingly -- remember, it's a very high standard. A whole lot of people say, one mistake or two mistakes. That's not true.

John Loredo:
It's a loophole?

Barrett Marson:
It's not a loophole. It's knowingly. It's a very high standard. Once you reach that standard, businesses should have -- you know, a business owner and businesses should have a penalty. Money laundering is illegal. You can lose your license for money laundering. Your business could shut down. We don't excuse money laundering by a business just because other people will lose their jobs. And so this is all about just following the law. Most businesses out there will never be impacted by this law, because they already hire legal residents and do the correct checks.

John Loredo:
Depends what the industry is. I mean, quite clearly, there are a lot of industries that are outraged about this. Agriculture, the housing industry, meat packing, you name it these are folks that rely on undocumented immigration workers and without those workers, they go under.

Barrett Marson:
Well, and you're right. I mean, they rely on the cheap, illegal labor. But we shouldn't reward them by giving them that cheap illegal Labor. So --

John Loredo:
Sure. Um, another issue, Barrett, is pretty hot and heavy right now is Sheriff Joe's racial profiling hotline. If you have someone harassed, pick up the phone and call Sheriff Joe. What do you think about that? It's really picking up steam at this point.

Barrett Marson:
I don't know if it's picking up steam, but what you have here is just a frustration about illegal immigration. I mean, throughout all of soap we have an issue here of illegal Immigration. This is an outlet for people to report, you know, people whom they believe are illegal. I know you like to say it's "racial profiling" but, you know, in fact I think sheriff Joe got a tip that led to a murder scene last week. And so it's -- I know you -- some people like you like to say it's a racial profiling thing but really this is just another way people can vent their frustration at illegal immigration. Not legal immigration but illegal immigration.

John Loredo:
In reality, the majority of violent crime in this county and State aren't committed by illegal immigrants. It's committed by white males. If Sheriff Joe was really that concerned about violent crime in the society, maybe should he start a hotline for them?

Barrett Marson:
We do have a hotline though --

John Loredo:
Get the real crime, violent crime instead of being a farm Grower and picking fruits and vegetables and framing people's Houses.

Barrett Marson:
John, we do have -- we have crime stoppers, I don't hear anyone complaining about crime stoppers that hotline. We have a hotline for criminals and this one is specifically for Illegals. I don't know if he's actually picked up any illegals. I've not seen the numbers yet, but -- and this is for people essentially to vent. This is really an issue. It really is a problem.

John Loredo:
At some point, we're going to get down to the heart of the Matter which is whether or not, you know, people like sheriff Joe actually want to go through the process of setting up hotlines to stop violent crime in this county which he does a very poor job of controlling.

Barrett Marson:
Let me move onto another problem in this state, and that's a Fiscal problem, it's a money problem. We're spending a little bit more than we've got right now and, Um, you know, the speaker going to asset, you know, -- try to See if the joint legislation committee could look at ways -- where can the state of Arizona cut back a little without impacting needed services for our residents. We're $225 million in the hole and we're only a month and a half into the new fiscal year. We'll have issues potentially if we don't start belt tightening right now.

John Loredo:
And I think the issue is starting last year, I mean, during The budget process, it was forecasted there'd be a shortfall if you did $600 million in tax breaks. This is no surprise. If anything, this is the result of building a structural deficit Into your budget where you know that at some point -- maybe not This year but this year and the year after, you'll hit a Downfall and you won't have the money you need to to pay for Critical services. This was no accident. This was built into the budget.

Barrett Marson:
John, I didn't see you complain about structural deficit when Budgets were rising 15\% or 20\%. When you were a minority leader -- and that was what? Only four years ago. The budget was what? $6 billion and now it's about $11 billion!

John Loredo:
And those budgets were raised with a republican majority in Office.

Barrett Marson:
Oh and a democratic governor. There was a democratic governor that demanded increased Spending. The point -- $6 billion! This is not a tax cut problem, this is a spending problem. We nearly doubled the budget in five years.

John Loredo:
When you don't have the money to give for tax cuts, that's Money that would otherwise be used for critical services. So when you built in a structural deficit into your budget, you guarantee that you're going to fall short in the future and here we are. So you've got $600 million in tax cuts that you can eliminate from in order to balance that budget.

Barrett Marson:
I think there's a way you define "critical needs of the State." You define it as corporate welfare in science foundation of Arizona and things like that whereas republicans define it as, first of all, public safety and giving people their money back. All right? Well, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. It was good seeing you tonight.

John Loredo:
You too.

Larry Lemmons:
The city of phoenix, aps and srp are encouraging us to use Cfl's or compact fluorescent lamps. You've probably seen these unusual looking bulbs in the stores. They save money and energy. In fact, through the aps energy program, more than three million of these bulbs have already been sold saving more than $90 Million in energy costs. Joining us now to tell us more about these bulbs, the marketing and relationship manager at SRP, Heidi Schaefer. Why are these better than regular bulbs?

Heidi Schaefer:
These come in a multitude of shapes. They come in a larger variety of light output from yellow to all the way to bright white like you used to with Incandescent. It's a simple, cost-effective way for each of us to help our Environment.

Larry Lemmons:
You might show, when people go to the store, first of all, they need to be looking for the energy star thing, right? Because there are the cheap ones that aren't as good.

Heidi Schaefer:
Right, don't get one that doesn't say energy star. Energy star comes with a certainty of warranty. They can last up to 10 times longer than an incandescent lightbulbs. Don't get the cheap reproductions that aren't certified by Energy star. Look in the store for energy star. You need to be a knowledgeable consumer when it comes to CFL's, because you can't just shift the same wattage. A watt from a CFL is different from a wattage from an Incandescent. SRP has put out our power-wide solutions magazine. For those of that you don't receive it it'll be on our web site, www.srpnet.com/cfl. In there are charts for you to understand how to choose the Right CFL for your usage.

Larry Lemmons:
Because as you told me before we went on here, just because you want a 100-watt bulb right now doesn't mean there's a 100-watt Bulb in the CFL version, right?

Heidi Schaefer:
Significantly different. Exactly. These don't come up to that kind of wattage. You need to be an educated consumer to be a happy consumer when It comes to CFL's.

Larry Lemmons:
These are more expensive. Some people would complain about the fact that they're more expensive but on the other hand they last longer, what's the Ratio?

Heidi Schaefer:
It's 30\% difference in the payback. They do last longer. In fact, if you go to an ace hardware store, they are partners with the energy. They'll provide a free CFL for a $20 purchase.

Larry Lemmons: Now, city of phoenix is involved in this as well. What are they doing?

Heidi Schaefer: City of phoenix has pledged out in all of our bills that went Out to our phoenix residents, mayor Gordon added his requests For all of the citizens to pledge they'll change incandescent to CFL and, in fact, that's happening all across the region in the Month of august and September, SRP talked to the residents to Change out the incandescent light bulbs. Please take the pledge. We'd love to see 100,000 customers sign on and take the pledge.

Larry Lemmons: Of course, APS is involved as well. Can't leave them out.

Heidi Schaefer: Don't leave APS out. They're our partners in this we're thrilled to be able to Partner with them and with all the cities.

Larry Lemmons: There's mercury in these light bulbs. Disposing of them is a special thing. Talk about that.

Heidi Schaefer: Yeah, that's a very important thing. Again, back to the education, there's a small amount of mercury about the amount that would fit on the tip of a ball point pen. Still, it's mercury. It needs to be treated as solid waste. When you dispose of them, dispose of them on the solid waste Sites in the city. On our web site, we have links to give you instructions on how to properly dispose of spent CFL light bulbs.

Larry Lemmons: If they break, there's a special procedure to follow if that happens?

Heidi Schaefer: Yes, there's a special procedure because of the mercury that's in there. You need to handle it very carefully. You need to bag it very carefully. Again, on our web site, it'll give you the specific instructions should you accidentally break one of these and you need to Dispose of a broken CFL.

Larry Lemmons:
We've only got 30 seconds. What's the web site.

Heidi Schaefer:
www.srpnet.com/cfl.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Heidi Schaefer.

Heidi Schaefer:
Thank you.

Merry Lucero:
On this "Horizon" special, walking, eating safely, being Sure to cook ground beef thoroughly, see if you're at risk for Getting diabetes by taking a quick on-line test and helpful Information for allergy sufferers Tuesday at 7:00 on "Horizon."

Larry Lemmons:
Wednesday, we'll examine health care coverage as the topic Of the Arizona town hall. Thursday, a special edition of "Horizon" looking at things you Might be surprised are made in Arizona! Friday, join us for the journalists' roundtable. Thank you very much for joining us on this Monday edition of "Horizon." Join us every day this week for something new. We're always going to surprise you. Thanks very much for just tuning in just because you're just Surfing around. I'm Larry Lemmons, have a good night.

Content Partner: