Transcripts For CSPAN C-SPAN Weekend 20110507

all of the people who work with you in the department of homeland security, and by extension, to all of the people in the securities sector of our government, military intelligence, who performed so brilliantly and bravely and together to bring about the extraordinary result that was achieved. on sunday in pakistan. the teamwork that was so pervasive in the successful assault on that compound in pakistan is precisely what this committee hoped for when we worked so hard first to establish the department of homeland security in 2002 after 9/11 and then to introduce and bring forth the legislation that created the 9/11 commission, and then to consider in two phases and advanced through the committee and ultimately to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, reforming the intelligence community. i think all of us are both very grateful and very pro of the work that was done, and since this is the first opportunity i have had to see you in public, i wanted to thank you and ask you to thank all of those who have worked with you, and i hope you will say a few words about that in your opening statement. also, as good as we feel about what happened on sunday in a pakistan and as much as reno that it makes us safer in the world cocoa we also know that the war against islamic terrorism is not over. the enemy is still out there and will continue to try to attack us here at home and to the extent that you're able in your testimony, in your opening statement, i would like to ask you a bit about the post bin laden sense of homeland security. let me come back to the top of the day. briefly, the security of our borders in all of its manifestations is very important. the term is one of the great achievements since 9/11 is the extent to which we have secured our borders against those who would come in to do us harm. the focus of these hearings, of course, has been on a different type of border security, which is border security related to illegal immigration, but also a concern about the drug cartel violence in mexico and the extent that it may come over the border, our border, into the united states, but and in this regard, too, i want to thank you for all you have done. i think you have faced a really significant challenges, both in terms of all kinds of border security and, of course, natural disasters, if you have handled your job with real strength and effectiveness and common sense, and i appreciate it. witnesses at the two previous hearings on the taba border security, a largely agree that the situation along the border has improved significantly over the past decade. the best statistics available bear this out. the one that seems to be most commonly used in the apprehensions of illegal aliens along the border are down 73% since 2000, which is the lowest level in three decades. that is, of course, good news. we have spent a fair amount of time in the previous hearings on the metric, on the statistics, and we know that they're just a piece of the picture and can be misleading. at different times, for example, the border control has cited increases of apprehension as proof of progress and some dense decreases as proof on the theory that there were fewer people trying to get over into the u.s., you're the apprehensions, so we believe we have got to try our best to figure out how many people are actually attempting to come over the border and compare that to the number of those who succeed. i understand that the border patrol has been trying to collect this information through footprints video, censored, regentsensors, -- sensors, but this is not 100% up to the challenge. finde you'll be able to ways to improve the collection of misinformation and consider making a public so we can more accurately assess the extent of the problem and our progress on in. the second point that has come out of these hearings that has struck neil: is to focus on the southern border. it has often overshadowed other vulnerabilities that continue elsewhere in our immigration and enforcement system. one statistic which reveals a vulnerability that i would guess would be and is very surprising to most americans, about 40% of the illegal immigrants in our country, undocumented aliens, people living and working in the united states today illegally, they came into this country legally, and then they overstayed the terms of their visas, so in terms of the problem of illegal immigration, about 40% of the problem is not people who have come over the border and into our country illegally but people who have come in legally and stayed over. and this both undercut the legitimacy of the law that we have about temporary visas, for instance, but it also threatens our security. the most pressing and illustrator of number is that five of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 entered the u.s. legally and then intentionally overstayed their visas, and just recently, a few years ago, another one arrested in dallas on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks was in the united states initially on a student visa, a legal visa, and overstayed. a new gao report that just came out concludes that of the roughly 400 people who have been convicted of any terrorism-related crimes since of timber 11, 36% had overstayed their visas. in other words, almost 10 percent of people convicted of terrorism-related activities in the decade since 9/11 our legal visitors who overstay their visas and became illegal. despite a lot of congressional effort and dhs effort, we still lack an exit system that will effectively figure out people who have overstayed their visas in real time. the dhs program that is supposed to identify visa overstays based on visitor entry and exit information, it remains a troubled and ineffective program. officials of your department have told the committee that less than half of all potential overstays identified by matching entry and exit records, in geo has just released a report that they have an overall backlog of 1.6 million potential overstay records that have not yet been processed. i am sure part of this is we have not given you the support to do that, but it is a real problem. identifying individuals who have overstayed is a crucial component to our security, our borders, and making our immigration system credible and real to the law. to me, it is unacceptable that we are still unable to systematically identify people who have overstayed, so i hope you will be able to talk about that and what the department is doing about it in your testimony. one final point, and in the midst of everything else we have to do here, i hope will be able to discuss this. as we began a series of hearings on border security, by at least have the goal of both dealing with the current state of border security, how we are doing it, keeping our borders secure, particularly with regard to illegal immigration, but it has also become clear again to me -- let me finish that thought, which is if we reach the level, here is my hope, that if we both reach the level of fighting a what is not working in border security and can fix it, then we would not only be able to achieve that good results, but it would be a preface to going back and considering the reform of our immigration laws, which is just about everybody here in congress agrees need to be fixed, though we have different ideas on how to fix them. the assumption was border security could lead not only to better border security but to building a political consensus to do with the continuing problem of illegal immigration. it seems to me now as i listen to the testimony that the inverse is also true, that there are forms of what i would call smart immigration reform that also can enhance border security, but to put it more explicitly, there are kinds of smart immigration reform that can significantly reduce the flow of illegal emigrants into america, and to extend the we have time, and i hope that we will, i welcome your thoughts on that connection. thanks very much for being here. i look forward to your testimony. at this time, i am pleased to call on are ranking member, senator collins. >> thank you. let me join in welcoming the secretary back before our committee today. with the welcome news that osama bin laden has been killed, i want to join the chairman in faking everyone involved, particularly those brave navy seals the so flawlessly executed the mission and the many other members of our military intelligence and homeland security forces whom we may never know. this was, as the chairman has pointed out, exactly the kind of the collaboration of our intelligence and operational capabilities that we envisioned when we reform our intelligence community in the wake of the attacks on our country on 9/11, 2001. this successful operation demonstrates once again the importance of sharing intelligence information across the agencies. the very opposite of the disjointed free september 11 experience. i appreciate, madam secretary, but the department immediately issued a situational awareness alert to a key state in homeland and local homeland security and law enforcement officials and midnight on sunday, sharing intelligence information and including a call for heighten diligence. that system did not even exist prior to the attacks on our country. today's hearing, as the chairman pointed out, is the continuing focus on the challenges facing us with border security. border security is critical, not only to prevent individuals from entering the united states illegally for whatever reason but also to stop at the border and these issuance. to stop at the border and these issuing points, or on inbound u.s. flights, those who are determined to hurt us. and despite the killing of osama bin laden, we must never forget th the battle against islamic extremists is still very much on. the first two hearings in this most recent series emphasized the challenges along the southwest border while earlier the committee was focusing on the northern border. when we consider the southwest region, we should pause to honor and remember the sacrifices of the border patrol age who was murdered last december and the agent who was killed by members of the drug cartels in february. these fallen heroes and the terrific news reports of continuing to stream out of mexico rebuilt the brutality of these cartels. recently, nearly 300 bodies were discovered in mass graves just some 90 miles from brownsville, texas. just last month, fbi director robert mahler said, "cartels' transfer kilos of cocaine and marijuana, and gangs kidnap and murder innocent civilians, affickers smuggle human cargo, and corrupt public officials lined their pockets by looking the other way." director mahler concluded that taken together these issues constitute a threat not only to the safety of border communities, but to the security of our entire country. this bacrop explains why many of us were perplexed to hear the secretary say in late march that security of the southern u.s. borders is very -- is better now than it has ever been and that violence from neighboring mexico has not aged north -- edged north. the union representing border control agents has countered that crime is indeed spilling over from mexico. they point to the murder of three border patrol agents by the cartel's in the last three years, the ranchers and her citizens who had been gunned down in border communities, and the phoenix area, which has risen to become a cartel related crime hot spot. the council concluded, "the u.s.-mexico border is unsafe and to say anything else is not true." data one secretary's apprehensions' on the border or certainly useful, there are contributing factors that should not be ignored as we scrutinize the numbers of declining interdiction. for instance, or some of the declining numbers simply reflecting a slow economy -- fewer people tried to cross over into this country? is the persistent cartel pilots deterring others from crossing? to put it bluntly, individuals will not be arrested at the border or north of its if they are too frightened to run a gauntlet of terror that may end in a mass grave. these and other factors should be considered as we evaluate the effectiveness of the administration's policies in addressing what is a very difficult issue. while the southwest border is much more likely to make the evening news, we must not forget the northern border. the chairman has pointed that out. it has been made on numerous occasions. according to a report reased by the gao, the border patrol was aware of all illegal border crossings oonly about 25% of the 4,000 mile northern border. the border patrol was able to make an immediate rest -- arrest on a portion of the border. the gao has observed that the terrorist threat on the northern border is higher than the southern border given the large expanse of area with limited law-enforcement coverage. that is why believe that the administration's proposals have limited -- proposals are ill advised. i am glad they had been repeatedly rejected by congress. thisrogram shod be used to help secure both the northern and the southern borders. it helps find joint operations between the bord control and state and local law enforcement that act as a multiplier in the areas that are likely to be left uncovered. to cite just one example, stone garden was instrumental in the arrest of eight smuggling operation. a police officer, a criminal attempti to smuggle $137,000 across the border. he was patrolling outside of his regular community. this individual would not have been caught by operation stone garden funding. we are not limited to the borders of themselves. the chairman has mentioned a gao report that is of tremendous concern for me that indicates that ice is only advocating about 3% of its resources to targ individuals who are here illegally because they have overstayed their visas. they came legally in the first place, but now they are here illegally. it is an enormous number. it is more than one-third. it is between 33% and 40% of the number of people here illegally. another report by g l which examines the visa security -- by the gao which examines the visa security program -- the u.s. only has offices at 19 of the 57 high risk posts. the gao further found ongoing turf battles between ice and at the state department, which are simply unacceptable when it comes to dealing with the terrorist threat. i look forward to discussing these issues with the secretary today and i thank you for her appearance. >> secretary, napolitano -- secretary napolitano, thank you for being here. >> thank you, chairman lieberman for the opportunity to testify today. i have a more complete statement that i asked to be included in the record. >> without objection. >> i would like to begin with discussing a topic that is on everyone's mind before moving to the principal topic of the hearing. the operation to get osama bin laden was an extraordinary success not only for the united states, but for the entire world. i want to join you in commending the men anwomen of the intelligence committee, the armed forces, and are professionals who played an important role in bringing bin laden to justice. this does not and our counter- terrorism effort we must remain vigilant regarding dress up to the united states voiced by al qaeda affiliates or al qaeda-like affiliate's as well as the threats posed by homegrown, violent extremists. our security posture, which always includes a number of measures both seen and unseen, will continue to protect the american people from the evolving threats we face. we have taken a number of actions specifically in response to sunday's events. these include issuing advisories to law-enforcement entities. we have been reviewing all ope cases of potential al qaeda operatives possibly in the united states in conjunction with the fbi. we are identifying any new trading rules of the should be instituted based on incoming intelligence. we are continuing to strengthen our recurrent studies for a visa, asylum, and other benefit applicants and recipients in cooperation with the intelligence community. we are putting officers at our airports. we are providing additional information to all air carriers. as you know, we have recently substituted for the old color code, which was commonly viewed as obsolete -- a new system own as the national terrorism advisory system to more effectively communicate information about terrorist threats. right now, we do not have any specific or credible intelligence that would lead us to issue an alert under this new system. realizing that under the new system the baseline is already elevated. in other words, the baseline assams a continuing and evolving terrorist threat -- a sense a continuing and evolving terrorist threat against the -- assumes an ongoing and continuing terrorist threat against the united states. we will issuen alert if we get intelligence that wants it under the new advisory system. to move on to the main topic up- to-date's hearing, i am glad to have an opportunity to speak about the southwest border. i gather i will now be speaking also about the northern border. unprecedented resources have been dedicated over the past 2.5 years and that has resulted in significant progress being made. i also want to discuss the metrics used to gauge the success. the administration has dedicated a historic level of resources to securing the southwest border in terms of manpower and in terms of infrastructure. we have increased the size of the border patrol to more than twice the size it was in 2004. i now have a quarter of all the rsonnel in the southwest border region -- more than ever. we did all but 3 miles of the pants and called for by congress. for the first time, unmanned aerial aircraft's capability covered the entire southwest border from california to texas providing aerial surveillance to personnel on the ground. they are being supemented by critical security improvements at the northern border including additional agents, technology, and infrastructure as well as strong, serious, and strategic enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the united states. as someone who has lived most of her life in border states and has worked with public officials are dealing with water-related issues since 1993, i can say from personal experience that the steps that have been taken constitute the most comprehensive a dedicated effort to strengthen border security that we have ever deployed. of the past two years, seizures of contraband has risen in all categories -- drugs, illegal weapons, illegal cash. illegal immigration attempts, as measured by apprehension of illel alien has decreased by 36% in two years. they are less than one-third what they were at their peak. fbi crime statistics demonstrate that the crime rates in border communities have their work -- have remained steady or drop in recent years, continuing a decade-long trend. i am not the only one, senator collins, who has stated that the border is safer now than it ever has been. the border city mayors themselves have said that and are concerned that the misperception on this side of the border is interfering with their ability to attract jobs and economic development to their own regions. i must also say, i am perplexed why the union which represents some of our border patrol agents do not report the success that the border patrol has achieved over the past 2.5 years. i can only say that -- like i say, i am perplex. i will not go into that any further. the significant improvements would not have been possible without the bipartisan support of this congress, particularly, -- particularly the money passed last summer. i thank you for your continued support. nonetheless, we still face challenges. this is not a victory lap. we must continue to build upon the progress we have made. we remain deey concerned about the drug cartel violence taking place in mexico. we know these organizations are seeking to undermine the rule of law, especially in northern mexico, and we must guard against any spillover effects in the united states. well our efforts have led to progress in every significant metric we currently have, we must focusn new ways to comprehensively measure results along the border. ultimately the success of our efforts must be measured in terms of overall security and quality of life along the entire border region. i had directed u.s. customs and border protection to develop a new index to comprehensively measured security along the southwest border and the quality of life in the region. as part of this process, we are convening independent, third party representatives to evaluate any such index. in developing these border metric it is important to keep in mind our ultimate goal, which is to make border security more secure and provide a basis for economic prosperity. that is like a new border security index will not only take into account traditional measures sh as apprehensions and contraband seizures, but we will also incorporate indicators of the act of illegal cross- border activity on the quality of life in the border regions. these include factors like traffic agents -- traffic accidents involving illegal immigrants, and passed on property values and other measures of economic activity that can be impacted by illegal immigration. because defining success at the border is critical to how we move forward, our definition of success must meet several guidelines. it must be based on reliable numbers. it mus tl the complete, transparent story. it must include the priorities of the border coittees themselves. i look forward to working with this committee on this important issue. there are a number of other things i can't say -- i can say in respoe to the numbers of the g submitted. suffice it to say, however, that many of those g l statistics -- g.a.o. statistics are not complete wh respect to the efforts that have been undertaken. i will adjust that a little bit in the "q&a". thank you again for the opportunity to tesfy. thank you again for the opportunity to present the case before the security -- to present the case for border security in the united states. >> i appreciate the comments you made about the state of readiness of the department post bin laden's death. a few quick questions i hope will illustratthe seamless of our counter-terrorism efforts. i presume that, for instance, we know that the navy seals took an enormous amount of data from the compound in pakistan. i assume that as this material is gone over, anything related to haleh security will bshared immediately with your department. -- homeland security will be shared immediately with your department. >> it is being shared. quite good. a lot to highlight what i believe i heard you say. although you have not raised the national threat advisory system alert -- you are right. it is important to put out that 1 cents these changes put into the system last week he us always at a state of alert. the judgment you make in changing that would -- would be to raise that to an elevated state of alert and then to end and in that state of alert. >> we have a counter-terrorism advisory board comprised of all the members of the intelligence community to are constantly reviewing intelligence coming in as it relates to the homeland. they analyze it for whether a threat is either elevated or is so specific and credible that it actually reveals an eminent threat. at that point, an advisory would be issued. we would tell people as many facts as we can. it tells them what they can do to protect themselves or their families. it tells them what they can do to help us with regard to the threat. for example, we may be looking for certain types of vehicles or other things. it tells them where they can go to get continuously updated information. rather than the colors, which did not communicate any information. this is designed to communicate information. >> if you do not have specific or credible evidence and have not read -- have not elevated, does not mean the department has not taken additional steps cents bin laden was killed. you indicated that there was increased security at the airports. i do not know if you mentioned at seaports, but i would imagine that is included. is that correct? >> that is correct. we have also, at airports in particular, we have taken additional efforts at our borders. as i mentioned, we are also going back and reviewing all of the pre-existing intelligence with respect to open files against the united states. >> i appreciate that. we are reassured to know that some of the materials that were seized at bin laden's compound are already being shared with the department. my impression that bin laden himself continued to be focused on attacks on the united states of america, on our homeland -- it may be that the information gathered by the seals from his compound could hopefully prevent such attacks. let me focus on now on the direct question that we originally were goingo handle, which is border security. we are operating in a political context. i mean that in terms of the body politic. we are dealing with how we can form a consensus to both improve the security at our borders -- but as we said, the equation that people have articulated that our immigration system is broken, but we are never going to have a no support for immigration reform until we can say that our border is secured. i want to deal with that part of it first. the security fence act of 2006 required that the department of haleh security achieve operational control of the border -- department of homeland security achieve operational control of the border. any unlawful entries into the united states -- >> at a recent colloquium, you all agreed that total operational control over our border is effectively an unreachable goa, that we are never going to be ae to fully seal off the border from all illegal activity. if that is correct, and i suspect it is correct, i think we have to ask ourselves, and i am going to ask you now, what is an achievable goal in terms of securing our border? i ask that both because we have a responsibility to secure our border, but also because, hopefully, it will help us decide what level of border security we need to achieve before we can go on to deal with the problem of immigration reform. >> mr. chairman, i think two things. one is that is why we have gone back. operational control is an archaic term. that was testified to by some of the other witnesses you have had in this area. it is a limite term. it makes for a sound bite, but it does not reflect the reality of what is happening at the border. but the fact of the matter is that we need a more quantitative and qualitative way to reflect what actually is occurring at the border. that is what i have directed someone to prepare. but also, mr. chairman, there is a linkage between immigration reform and the border. they are interrelated. the notion of this kind of sequencing does not reflect the reality that with immigration reform, some of the underlying laws involving visas, temporary workers, those sorts of things -- if you deal with the legal immigration system, that also has an impact on what is in the illegal immigration system. this is a not that we must untie, looking at all these things together. >> i take it from what you are saying, as an example, we may be able to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants by altering immigration laws. for ss, pervert -- providing for temporary workers visas or raising the temporary cap on visas allow fo people coming into the country. >> indeed. an example would be for agricultural worker bees is, but there are many others as well. >> thank you for the announcement you have made this morning. i think it is significant. you have directecustoms and at border protection to come up with a new index, a new metric for measuring or security. they will bring in outside experts to consult with them. i think that will really help to inform the debates and allow us to set some goals that are achievable, and also create a foundation for moving on to the related question of immigration reform. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are moving as quickly as possible on this. it is a bit of an onion to peel when you actually look at it. one of the things we wa to know, for example, how many people have been deterred or prevented from crossing illegally by the measures we are taking? it is very difficult in all areas, but especially here to measure a deterrent number to get the denominator. we have to have other factors we looked at before we can reasonably say and reasonably extrapolate that we now have a safe and secure border region that also facilites the flow of legal commerce and trade and tourism. >> thank you, very -- thank you very much. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with the border securi issue. you made a comment that youere expected to talk about the southwest border, but wanted to talk aut the northern border. title of this hearing is securing the borders. our witness letter made very clear we were thinking about the entire border. >> i am ready to do that. >> i do not want you to have a misleading impression. let me just start with the december gao report that looked at a number of issues. it was in this report that the gao quotes dhs as reporting that the terrorist threat of the northern border is hired giving -- given the broad expanse of area with limited law- enforcement present. the gao also went on to say that dhs reports networks of illicit criminal activity between the two countries. the vast majority of trade and travel between the u.s. and canada obviously is legitimate. we do not want to impede that legitimate travel and trade, but that is one reason i am such a reporter of the operation stone garden. it allows for joint operations that are a multiplier for the federal government as well as helping state, county, and local law enforcement. i truly do not understand in light of d.h.s. own assessment that the terrorist threat is higher on the northern border and that there is significant criminal activity. why is the administration year after year tryi to restrict operation style garden to st the southern border? >> if i might discuss the measures that arengoing at the northern border that are not captured in the december gao report. the northern border is different from the southwest border in the sense that you have some big urban areas where a lot of traffic goes back and forth and then you have a huge expsion of farm land as has been testified to. our design for the northern border is different than from the southwest border. our strategy is different as well. it is much more technology dependent. we are adding more systems up there that can detect low flying aircraft. also, our partnership with canada has evolved over the past mohs so that we have the prime minister and president obama themselves announcing a joint vision for a perimeter involving canada and the united states and greater cooperation with canadian law enforcement on both sides of the border. that is going extraordinarily well. for example, we are looking at being able to integrate their own radar feeds into our system as well. with respect to stone garden, there are some stone bargain moneys that have been allocated to the northern border. but in terms of looking at where the need is greatest -- i only get so much -- measured by what the local law enforcement is asked to do, the overtime, the maintenance of vicles, those sorts of things,tone -- i will acknowledge that the priorities have gone to the southwest border and probably will continue to do so. >> i understand the premise that the southwest border is why we have so many more border agents, but this is a program that is not an expensive program that allows you to do more than you otherwise could. it is d.h.s. own findings that warn about the terrorist threats from the north. in my remaining time, let me switch ta different issue. that is the security program. i've been watching this program for many years. since 2002 when it was first established. the fact is, we are not making much progress. the ice personnel have only been deployed to 19 of the 57 highest risk state department post around the world. this program is an example of one where we can stop people from getting visas in the first place. it is an example of the kind of coordination you have advocated and it helped advance across department lines and that this committee has always promoted. but, to me, it is very disappointing that the president's budget request is unchanged from last year for this program. are you going to be able to cover more of these high risk post with that budget? >> one of thehings we were asked to do is to see if there are current functions that we could continue to perform or even an large if we could figure out another way to do them. the visa security program, as you acknowledge, requires an agreement with the state department. iill acknowledge there have been some isss there. i think we are working our way through them. the other thing i asked i asked to do is to figure out a way we could do the same double checked service on a visa remotely by using some of the i e-systems we have in place. i believe this year we will be able to do that and expand our visa eyes and ears in that fashion. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator collins. the next senator will be senator tester. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is always good to see you, madam secretary. i also very much appreciate the statement you made earlier today when we were talking about bin laden -- this is not a victory lap, this is about getting a job done and moving forward. it is about some very difficult decisions that were made. you were part of that and you need to be credited for that and i thank you. the other thing i wanted to talk about real quick -- the ranking member talkedabout this a lot -- is stone garden. i do not want to dwell on it a lot, but i do want to simply refresh on what you just said. there would be stone garden grants available to the northern border? >> there is still money available, senator, but they are not in the same amount. i understand that. when we are talking about stone garden and limited amounts of money, where you able to take into account as the director, as the head honcho, the potential money that the stone garden money could save to expand that program? are you able to do that within your budget? >> if yes. that is an analysis we are using for all of our funding. i would say, senator, that one of the thingwe've been doing over the past weeks is looking at the budget agreement for 2011 which cut a lot of the grant funding that we had for anti- terrorism and looking at how we prioritize. how do we make sure money is going to where it can be best used to eliminate risk? we will do the same for stone garden. >> would it be fair to say, or at least can i get your reassurance -- when 2012 comes around, there will be dollars to be able to develop partnerships with local law enforcement agencies of the nthern border. >> it is fair to sayhat there will be dollars available, but the wholeniverse of grants if you add them up is less than last year. >> yes. we may not be able to help with that. i was pleased that d.h.s. announced a round of grants in a demonstration program. it is important for people to communicate. as we mo forward, is d.h.s. looking to expand upon their program? >> we have a different funding for an opera ability. the answer is s. i would also say that this is an area where the northern border is a particular issue because of large amounts of world territory that has to be covered. -- rural territory that has to be covered. we have ways to deal witthe urban areas of the country, but the rural areas are more difficult. >> you talked about harper and obama having a meeting and a joint vision -- is there anything being able to dine to share information on visa overstays in that regard? >> that is something we had discussed. there is nothi concrete at this point. i have met with my white house counterpart several times about this. let me get to a point where gm said only 3% goes to the set overstays. that is only looking at one account. the fact of the matter is, a lot of our programs capture a visa orsys. secure community picks up individuals that had been arrested. the 3% is not really an accurate reflection. >> i understand that. it is difficult, but i will tell you that folds, in illegal- , in legally and refused to go home. anything we can do to help you in tha regard to remind them to head back is incredibly important. i recently called for an investigation against a university that manipulates immigration laws to bring people in. it is a backdoor. are you aware of these schools? as the president taken any steps to remedy that? >> yes. we have been a initiative on the sham university issue. we have dealt with several of them. abluly. >> thank you for that. i appreciate the work about allowing planes to land with fewer passengers. the director of the rport is going to be coming to town and meeting with the commissioner and other senior folks, and i hope that will be a productive meeting. i don't ask this as a question, but just appreciate your efforts in working together to solve the problem. i think it is a big problem, from my perspective, and it can be handled at year-end giving guidance to focus on the ground. >> we will work with the great falls airport authority. if they want to lend additional passengers, they he to do ditional things at the facility. >> i think it can be worked out. >> we will try, absolutely. >> you talked about an elevated state of alert, which is what we are on now, correct? >> we are always on that, yes. >> was increased after the events of sunday? >> i know, we did not issue a separate advisory, except that we began immediately putting out intelligence products to state and local law enforcement, transportation authorities, and the like said that if they wanted to take any individual actions, they could do so. >> i had to fly into minneapolis sunday night to t here earlier than i normally would thrgh montana, and it seemed to me that tsa was in a more elevated state. i saw people walking around in places that i never noticed them before,cular area, a particular sector of the country, that goes out and we provide as many facts as we can and we provide what we want people do, how they can help the government, and how they can stay informed. if you go to disasteralerts.gov, there is a template for the advisory system and a briefing on how it works. i think pple i still making that adjustment. >> last time you were before the committee, i was trying to determine what we need to do to secure the border, and if it was a problem with resources, what it would cost to secure the border. your answer was that we have enough resources. taking off from that, do you have in your mind at multiple step process? what are your priorities in terms of resources, what steps are you going to take to g the border secured? >> they will be different between the southern and northern borders. they are different areas to secure. it is a combination of manpower, technology, and infrastructure. we're constantly looking at a number of measures to adjudicate whether we are getting results from the investments we are making. when you ask if we have enough resources, i realize and we all realize that we are in an era of depleted resources. i have to figure this out, recognizing in all likelihood there is not another $600 million that will come my way for the borders. how we make best use of what we have. we insist on accountability, producing results, and now i am assisting that the cdp develop a better way to measure those results. >> i am confused. do you have enough resources or don't you? >> i believe, senator, with the resources we have and the resources the president has requested, which is to sustain the record level of resources at the border -- we have never had this kind of level of resources. the key is not more, a sustainment. -- the key is not more, it is sustainment. we will be able to continue our efforts of securing the border. the question and the challenge for the committee will be, and for the senate, making sure that we have a fy 2012 budget from which to work. if we have a continuing resolution, we will have a problem. >> there is an awful lot of numbers, a lot of data. turning that into real information, is thconcept tt we will have an overall single number index? will that be by region, for the entire country? what is the threat assessment and securing the border kind of index? >> i am waiting for acp. they are in this process, to come back to me. i believe it is conceivable that we would have two different indices, for the north and south, because they are different. the index may be a range, which would reflect overall efforts at the border. what i know for sure, looking at apprehensions' alone does not cut it. using operational control also does not cutt. we need something more qualitative and quantitative that you can use allocating resources and we can use as well. >> the southern border, there is a vast difference in level of success, and would you not want to have a different indexes? >> we anticipate sector by sector. there is a big difference between the yuma sector, in which there is a lot of military land, and the tucson sector, which is the busiest and the one where we're putting the most resources. even in one state, we see a difference. that is why i think any kind of index would probably have to reflect the range. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you very much, senator. just to come back to the threat level, and we are all getting accustomed to the new system -- although i think it is an improvement -- and a circumstance -- let me put it this way, we are always on alert. the question is, do we raise it to elevate it? right now, after bin laden was killed, it is elevated, but there is no specific and credible evidence of a threat, but you have taken additional steps. just for clarification, when you go to elevated, if you did, does it mean the government is taking additial steps or that you are calling on the citizenry to be more alert, or both? >> both, and it also corresponds to the additional efforts by state unless local responders as well. in instituting the new system, one of the things we did was work of a lot with police departments around the country as to what elevated would mea we're always at a state of alert. we are always calling of the citizens, and it is every easy to remember slogan, "if you see something, say something." our actions are predicated on the fact we are always on alert. i will also say that the decision to raise or not to raise is based on recommendations from the counter-terrorism advisory board, which is comprised of all of the intel community and is constantly reviewing what is coming in. right now, given the material obtained from the compound, they are meeting at least once daily to go through everything to advise me if we should raise it. >> that is really important, both a clarification, but i come back to the fact that ourystem is really working seamlessly now so that you are getting real time information from the material seized at bin laden's compound in pakistan and you are evaluating it every day to determine whether you see anything in that infmation at would lead you to raise the threat level? >> more precisely, the counterterrorism advisory board is receiving that. other informatioas well. it constantly comes in. they're constantly analyzing it. but they are meeting, instead of meeting sporadically, they are meeting regularly in an ongoing fashion in relation to what happened on sunday. and if they advise me that, secretary, this is what we have, and we think this means that you should elevate the alert system that are exists, then i will a. at the o.k., that is very good to hear. i think the system is working as we would want it to. that may go to the visa overstay question, issued by gao. i know that you have taken issue with one segment, the accuracy, the clarity of the information. the most troubling part, the report said the u.s. visa program has a backlog of 1.6 million potential overstays that were identified, but which have yet to be processed. let me ask you to talk about that. to the best of your knowledge, is that accurate? and how are the potential overstays identified under the current system? >> let me, if i might, explain what is happening and what we are doing to improve the system. >> sure. >> these that overstays are another form of illegal immigration. once you overstay, your and the country illegally, and you have broken the law. just as we do with people who have crossed the border, and with a visa overstays, we appropriate enough money to remove about 400,000 people per year from the country. that is probably a small percentage of those who are in the country illegally, total. >> and that 400,000 is specifically on the overstays? >> no, total. >> if you really look at what it costs to remove somebody in the country illegally, we get enough money between ourselves and the justice department to remove about 400,000 people. so we set priorities. who are the ones we really want to get? we want to get those who fall within our guidelines for been possible national-security threats. that is number 1. number 2, we want to remove those who are fighting criminal law, -- who are violating criminal law, in addition to the immigration laws, and we want to third deal with those who are fugitives. and then at the border, this is not so much a removal process, but deal more effectively with those we pick up right at the border who are gaming the system: back-and-forth. -- who are gaming the system going back and forth. when we get a visa oversy, and there are systems now that revealed to us that somebody has no -- is a possible overstay, the first thing we look at is who of this fall within our guidelines of being a possible national security threat. i don't want to say ia non classified setting what those guidelines are, but all of those individuals, 100% of those individuals are set to another -- are sent to another unit within ice to be vetted and found. >> under the current system, what is the typical way that you find out, the department finds out that somebody has overstayed their visas? >> it can be a number of ways. one is if we have no record e of exit. thisll started becausef air, not land crossings but air. we can now matched or no match about 80%. 89%, 90%. the question is the remaining 10%. if they fall within our national security guidelines, 100% of that category would go into e ice unit to be found and investigated. the second categy are those who have filed a criminal law, or a danger to public safety, -- who are a danger to public safety, and we do a similar process. ere we are identifying those who are in the country illegally to are also in jail. >> what can we do and what can we do to help you reduce the backlog of those who are identified as potential overstays, but not processed? and also, of course, to more effectively identifyeople either por to coming and who seem to be coming in with the attention of overstaying and do better at finding the people? this is a larger question, but if you take the 40% number, and you take the lower number that we hear of estimates of the legal immigrants and the country, 10 million, that means 4 million people are here because they came and illegally and overstayed their visas, and as you said, once you overstay your visa, you are as the legal as somebody who illegally crossed the border. if somebody hires you, that is illegal. how can we deal, a bette deal with this part of the legal immigration problem? >> -- how can we better deal with this part of the legal immigration problem? >> we have to set priorits. we get enough money to remove 400,000. now we have to go from 400,000 to 4 million. that is why setting prosecuti priorities is key. the plain fact of the matter is most of the visa overstays are here illegally, but they are being drawn because they can work here. that is why border security and emigration reforms are so connected, because the plain fact of the matter is a number of these individuals, if they could get a different kind of visa or longer visa tied to implement, he would not put them in that 4 million category. >> i think that is fair. i just have one more question. who are the people, but do we know, who ar more likely to overstay their visas and become illegal immigrants? are they coming from different parts of the world, it even though their motivations may be similar? to work here or rejoin family or the like? >> that is a question i don't know the answer to. you are asking if the demograpcs are different. >> exactly. we assume that most of the illegal immigrants are coming across the southwest, coming in illegally. they have come across the southwest border, and probably a lot of reasons for that. the interest in coming over is greater, by farthen the number of legal fees that bring them and. >> the other thing -- it is by far greater than the number of legal visa that bring them in. >> the other thing is they're coming and for employment or they are related to somebody who has come into work. all of the systems are designed to really deal wit the interior enfoement issues would help. e-verify helps. all of these things get put together. increasing the penalties on employers who consistently higher a legal labor -- who consistently hire illegal labor and adjusting the cases would b helpful. then you are dealing with the demand pool of illegal immigration. as well as the supply. >> thank you. senator llins? >> madam secretary, i want to return to the issue of the threat level. as i listened to my colleagues questions about that and i thought about the comments of the director of the national counterterrorism center, that we can expect the temps to retaliate -- that we can expect the temps to retaliate, i am wondering why we did not raise the threat level? it seems to me that until a further assessment is done of the intelligence, including a full exploitation of the materials and data seized at the compound at which osama bin laden was living that it would be prudent to increase the threat level, not to the highest level, but it has been revamped and a way that i believe makes sense, but to acknowledge that we are in a situaon where we are at risk. i am curious why, given the comments, the public comments, given thate have yet to do a full exploitation of the materials from the compound, and given the ft that we are still doing an assessment of the reaction to osama bin laden's death, we areot taking timmy would be a prudent step of increasing the threat level. it -- we are not taking, to me, what would be it. instead of increasing the threat level. >> we are providing additional intel products to the law- enforcement community in the private sector so they can take whatever actions they deemed prudent. we are constantly evaluating whether we should issue a special advisory and they are part of the group that makes that recommendation. on an ongoing basis, it may come to the point that we say in this area, and for this, we will issue an elevated alert. but i think we want to be careful. we don't want to say because we suspect, reasonably so, at some point there may be retaliation, that we go ahead and make the nation on an alert status without more information than we currently have. that could change. the change tonight, it could change tomorrow, but the whole idea of the system is to say we are always on alert. the threat of terrorism is always with us. we're never going to be without it, even with the death of bin laden. we have other members of al qaeda, we have aqap, aqim, and that does not even count the homegrowns that we are concerned about from the lawn will stand point. that does not mean under the new criteria that we issue an elevated threat now. as intel comes in, as things are digested, and that is happening on a real-time basis, that may well be adjusted. but i think for the nation to keep paying attention to these alerts, we want to make sure they are tied to something that is specific. >> i appreciate your explanation of the process. from my perspective, it still seems. to temporarily, at least, elevate the threat level -- from my perspectiveit seems prudent to temporarily at least elevate the threat level. you just mentioned the lone wolf attack, and that is an issue this committee has devoted countless hearings to the past few years. as far as the fort hood investigation and report, we called upon the administration to create a strategy to ensure a unity of efforts among federal departments and agencies, and the development of a specific strategy to counter radicalization within our country. if you look at the plots over the past two years, they have domestic plots by people inspired by out qaeda, but not, in most cases, directly linkedo out qaeda. -- not directly linked to al qaeda. i would appreciate an update on this federal strategies to counter domestic radicalization and ensure a coordinated effort. >> yes, we have looked at what we do to prevent somebody who has been radicalized successfully carrying out an act of violence. we have concluded the best way for us to intervene is to support through grants and other programs local police, neighborhood policing strategieshat we reach out to the community, in the same way that we dealt witgang violence during the crack epidemic, or we focused on police on the streets that intimately knew the neighborhoods and the neighborhood's new them and the information was flowing because there was underlying trust. out of that, we said that we have to have a curriculum that focuses on the tactics, the techniques, the behaors that indicate that somebody has become radicalized to the point of violence. working with police across the countr we have developed a curriculum. we have baited tested it already at fltse, and there is a training module that can be used at home city did not have to travel to fletse. we continue to look for other ways, t we really focus on what is allow local law, and power in local law enforcement to prevent a lone wolf from being successful. >> thank you. i was very pleased to hear you mentioned the "see something, say something" campaign. the chairman and i have worked so hard to get that through when it came to the transportation sector, and withouthe chairman's willingness to stand up against many on the other side of the aisle, we never would have. i hope that means that you will endorse the broader bill that the chairman and i have introduced which would provide immunity from civil lawsuits to individuals who in good faith report suspicious activities to the authorities. it would not be protected if it was not in good faith, because right now the law that we wrote only applies to the transportation sector. >> i would be happy to look at that, senator. >> thank you. >> i only supported senator collins' proposal because it happens to be right. [laughter] to beat a dead horse, but let me take one more stab at this. the purpose of an advisory is to signal that something has changed. if we are always on the same constant level of alert, that degrades over time. >> if i might, that was the problem with the color codes. we were always at orange and nobody paid attention. the purpose of the advisory, in my view, is to communicate facts and information so people know what to do. if we elevate the advisory, it will be accompanied by information. what are the facts we can disclose, what people could do to protect themselves and their families, where people go to get updated information, how people can help us help them. we're always on alert. that is the elevated base. but now we will be providing additional facts based on intel we received that tells people what to do. >> okay, let's talk about the threat of terrorism intersecting border security. i read some relatively alarming statistics concerning apprehensions at the border. can you talk about the stats? >> we're looking at that right now. one of the things we have seen it is an increase in the category of other than mexican, o.t.m., illegal immigrant apprehensions. in one of the texas sectors, it has gone as high as one ithree recently. many are from east india, the country of india, and we are trying to get to the bottom of what is the trafficking route. what is the demand, what is happening there. and in this setting, i would just prefer to say that we have seen that trend over the past few months and we have devoted some additional resources to that trend and we're trying get to the bottom of that. >> have we increased our alert level in light of recent events? >> no. >> do you think we should? >> senator, if i am advised by the advisory board on the intel side that we should, i will do that. >> ok, i did make a trip down to the tucson corridor, down by the border, and you talked about man power and infrastructure. obviously, we want to protect the border and we put a lot of resources and the border patrol, but i'm mad little concerned about customs and border protection agents. we're building a lot of infrtructure in dallas. even with the current of the structure, i am concerned about the staffing levels there. can you speak about the staffing levels? >> the supplemental that was passed provided for several hundred more port officers t use on those additional lanes and so forth. they are in the process of being deployed right now. that is another reason why am coerned about our fiscal year 2012 budget. the president has asked those additional port officers beat annualized, that they become part of the base, and that is necessary because we need legal trade it to move, we need to wait times to be shortened. we have been investing in major improvements and enlargements on some of these ports, and that leaves more lanes to cover. we want to keep some of them open more hours, that means more coverage. right now, we're watching that carefully. we have been hiring on the port officers side. we want to analyze that. >> i want to say i was impressed with the professionalism and dedication. it was comforting. >> that is great. it is a tough job. >> i was impressed. i was intrigued by senator lieberman's, it's about smart integration policy. could you speak to what your concept of that would be and how that would affect o a legal immigration problem? >> -- how that would affect our illegal immigration problem? >> one of the drawls is the demand for illegal labor the current sanctions don't give us a great deterrent on the inveigation and prosecution side. i think this need to be looked at, as well as the elements that we're forced to demonstrate, that justice is forced to demonstrate. i think we should be looking at the different types of the visas that are offerednd look at streamlining and enlarging the visa categories that we have, particularly on the temporary visa side. then we have to have some way to parse the population that is already in the country illegally, given we are only given the resources to remove about 400,000 people per year and we wanto focus on those or security threats, criminals, fugitives, those kinds of priorities. once we fill those priorities, there are still millions of people left. what are we supposed to do? that is where the tough part comes sen. i believe the president would support a program to get those people out of the shadows identified, and for those who are there, if they can earn their way to citizenship by paying a fine, getting behind people who are attempting to use the system it legally, figure out a way to do that. that has been the hardest part of the issue because that is viewed as amnesty. >> let me go back to the process of securing the border. i assume the first that is measuring. >> that is an initial step, yes. >> what is the next that? >> -- what is the next step? >> i think we need to concurrently be looking at the intersection between interior immigration enforcement and wha is going on and immigration generalland what is happening at the border. the border is only one part of the problem. we need to be looking at the intersection of that and the border metric at the same time. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator johnson. senator mccain has just arrived. he was not able to be here because senate intelligence and home services were meeting with averell today. -- were meeting what admiral today. we will be asking for another briefing from adam role which oversaw -- from that role which oversaw the actions on sunday. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i apologize madame secretary, i was at this briefing. i apologize for being late. madam secretary, i am interested in your comments about the hardest part and the things we need t do. we have introduced legislation which we believe would be sufficient measures to secure our borders. we have never had on your part or the part of the ministration serious sit down negotiations on this issue. now, i understand the president's view on immigration reform and yours, but as i have set up on numerous occasions, have seen this before. i saw it in 1986, when we gave amnesty to 2 million people and said we would secure the borders and we have not. when there are still 171,000 people apprehended in one year crossing our tucson border, in the view of most observers, that is not a secure border. do you have a plan that can do that? and sometimes, my friends from other parts of the country and other people think that maybe senator kyl and i and a lot of our constituents, particularly in the southern part of arizona, are a bit intransigent. i received a briefing, two briefings that there are between 100-200 spotters on mountains in southern arizona inside the borders of the united states of america, spotting for drug cartels, and get the drugs to phoenix. then they distribute that. phoenix is the drug distribution center forhe nation, with the exception of some parts of the state of texas. now, i do not think that is an acceptable situation. perhaps you do. that was not my assessment, that was the assessment given to me, 100-200 spotters sitting on mountains inside the state of arizona, guiding the drug cartels as they bring drugs to phoenix and distribute them throughout the country. that, at least to the constituents i talk to of mine, is not an acceptable situation. d then, and enact i still do in an act ind, -- still cannot understand, i ask, how important is the will of the national guard. "indispensable." that is the words they use. then we are supposed to believe the administration is serious about securing our borders. well, i don't think so. so i would hope that, one, we could understand that when any state has 100-200 spotters, members of drug cartels inside their borders, guiding drug cartels as they bring drugs to phoenix, ariz., and distribute them through the nation, with the exception of some parts of texas, but that is not a situation that i should expect my constituents to tolerate. so i guess it is more of a statement that i would seek your response. the border is not secure. the euna sector is secure, -- the umana sector is secure, but there are other areas. we saw a film about three nights before. vehicles with flashing lights, right next to the border, right next to the fence, left turn, stop, she is a law that -- some bullets, and some of those fly across the border. and these mass graves are something that has shocked the nation. all that has to do with drugs that are moving into the united states of america. iagain, i would hope that we could have some serious conversations rather than at meetings with various interested groups and see if we cannot sit down and take the necessary measures that are clearly, and our view, that could assure the citizens of our country at the border there is a reasonable level of security and maybe move forward in order to achieve that. i would be interested in your response. >> thank you, senator, and your constituency used to be mine. i have spent a lot of my life on the border-related issues and i think wehare a lot of the same values and goals. let me take on four of the points you have made and provide some information. at first, with respect to the national guard, they have not been withdrawn. they are at the current force levels that have always been, the administration has not made a final decision about whether to continue to deploy them. one of the issues is who pays for the guard. i have asked our appropriators twice to allow us to reprogram funds to pay for the guard and continued to pay for the guard at the border. that reprogramming has been denied. this committee may want to look at that issue. it would be very helpful for sustaining the presence of the guard. again, i asked our appropriators, and it was denied last year. we would not renew that request. on the 10-point plan, many of those things we have been doing. there is a fiscal cost to it. i think your own numbers show it to be over $4 billion. the issue is whether some of the atoms there are the most cost-effective way to reach the common goals that we share. i am going to have that discussion with you and work with you on that. on the spotters, i speak as the former chairn arizona, the former u.s. attorney and attorney-general, i know the valley very well. i have asked theorder patrol, because i have been down there myself several times in the past few months, where are the spotters i keep hearing about? the answer i receive is dark are a couple of hundred tops from which espada could act -- a receive is there are a couple hundred tops from which espada could act, but they're not there. we are deploying our technology in that area to allow us to pick out more of the individuals involved in the drug trade than we alrea are. i would be interested in seeing if we could clary that particular point. last, on the number of illegals coming across the tucson sector, i agree, i don't like that number, either. it is dramatically down from what it was. it is down 35% from where it was when i started as secretary, but we're going to continue to put resources into that sector until we drive that number down even further. the part of this hearing that he missed, and that will be happy to set up a private meeting with you about, is developing a real border metric that takes into account apprehensions, typical crime stats, and other measures that give us a better overall sense of what is happening at the border. i think there is a general consensus that the apprehension number coming in and of itself, is not a complete measurement. >> well, thank you, and i am fascinated by your comment that they could not tell you where the spotters are at. they probably cannot te you exactly where they are because otherwise they would get them, but the fact is it that is factually correct. look, it is crazy format -- well, they are there and everybody knows they are there. it for you and your staff to deny they are there is sort of symptomatic to me of the recognion or appreciation of the problems that exist along our border. >> senator, with respect, there is no one who has spent more time working on this error is an issue that i have over the past few years -- - >> there is no one who has spent more time on this arizona issue than i have, madam secretary, and from sheriff's up to the u.s. attorney, there are between 100-200 spotters sitting on mountains in arizona. for you to dispute that is a big problem you have between yourself and them. and that needs to be clarified. if that is not true, that is fine with me, but it happens to be true and it is a huge problem, and it also happens to be that phoenix, ariz., in their view and othersiew it is the distribution center for drugs around this country. maybe you want to deny that, but the fact is that it is, and so, again, if you want to change the matrix, change the matrix, but on the ground in arizona, on the border, we see peopl still living in an environment that they're not living secure lives. we had witnesses before this committee testified to exactly that, ranchers and shares of the counti along the border. to get, if we're going into this, senator -- >> see, you may not trust the word of the sheriffs, and that is fine. but we in arizona trust them because they are the elected law enforcement officials that are there dealing with these issues every single day. again, the facts on the ground, and i know the facts othe ground, and i agree, there have been improvements, and i am grateful for those improvements, but i would argue they have not kept up with the escalation of violence on the other side of the border. and i go back to my original point that i made at the beginning of my comments. i think that it would be at least once for the administration to sit down with us at the border states, not just arizona, but new mexico, texas, california, and see if there is a way to work out a way to get our border secured. and maybe then it would be some benefit to all of ou constituents. please respond. >> well, senator, look, the she was a lot more complicated. you cannot just -- the issue is a lot more complicated. in my judgment, what we need to do at the border is exactly what we are doing, and more so. it is more manpower, or technology, more infrastructure. it is adding air cover, which we now have across arizona that we did not have before. it is also related to interior enforcement. it is the ability to identify who is in our jails in our country illegally, and being able to remove those. the ability to have consequences for all who cross illegally, that is important, i grant you that. the yuma sector may not be the best way to achieve that, but that is a discussion we ought to have. i look forward to sitting down with you, going through the plan. we have some options i would want you to consider, as i mentioned to you before. your challenge to me last meeting was what is a border metric. you ask me that question. i said, look, we need to create a metric that makes sense and measures all of these things, and we can include, and probably will, all of the drug activity and so forth. i must say, however, let's not get into a debate because some sheriffs say it is better and some say it is not. we have to look at the entire border and create a safe and secure border region. it said that the damage trade and travel can use it. it -- so that safe and secure trade and travel can take place. we have some differences on how we measure and get theire. >> i look forward to sitting down with you on this issue before the election season gets too polarizing, because i think it is important. i think we are on the right track, and i clearly stated there have been improvements, but i think we have more to go. would you indulge me one other comment? >> sure. >> >> and subject, i continue to get complaints from people about this physical pat down. we ought to really kind of work on some type of technology that that would not be necessary for our inspectors to go through. it is very invasive, and i have heard all of the reasons for it, but it seems to me in a country like ours we could develop some type of technology that could make something like that unnecessary. some people feel it is really embarrassing and humiliating, and i certainly understand their complaints. >> senator, i understand them as well, and i receive them as well. three things. one, we are working on research and technology. the research cycle is not an immediate cycle, but we are working with national lab and others on better technology. two, i have asked ann tsa is moving to a more risk-based approach on how we screen. part of that will lead to the third point, which is that we want to enlarge a traveler program, where they have a biometric card, like we use with pilots, and we're looking at ways to scale that up. >> thank you, mad secretary, and i am looking forward to continng our spirited dialogue. i enjoy that, too. -- >> i enjoy that, too. >> i want to thank both of you for the exchange. you both agree that things are better along the border and you both agree they are not good enough, and i think your announcement today that you have directed cbp to develop a new index for judging and reaching conclusions of whether the border is secure and w to make it me secure is very important. beyond your official announcement, in typical napolitano style, he said, and i paraphrase, the esting system of judging what security by the number of apprehensions "does not cut it," and the existing definition of operational control at the border does not cut it, either. i agree with you, and i think you have the opportunity now to develop a new standard of border security that is much more accurate and effective and can be a basis for a meeting of minds between people from different perspectives, both on the question of border security and a related question of immigration reform, and i urge you forward. i hope you will engage senator mccain and other members of congress, and the governors, for that matter, from the border states, and if you have room in any of those meetings for a guy from connecticut, i would be honored to be invited. >> we will work on that, senator. >> this is a really important question, and it ties directly to other important questions of immigration reform that senator mccain has raised. we still, in my opinion, have a chance in this session to try to achieve some significant improvement of border security and at srt immigration reform. and i hope we try every opportunity to do that. the two of you are critical and th, and i think you both. >> as joe biden would say, from your lips, to god's ears. madam secretary, thank you for your commitment and hard work. we're focusing on deficit reduction and cutting spending, looking at raising taxes, i focus more on it a third and fourth idea, and it the third is increasing growth, smart investments that can be commercialized with research and development and create products and innovations we can sell around the world. my other focus is on creating a culture of thrift in the federal government that would replace a culture of what some might say spendthrift. i like to say that everything i do i know i can do better. i think the same is true of most of us. i think we need to look in every nook and cranny of the federal government, to ask the question of discretionary or entitlement, is there a better way to get results or maybe it better results for not much more money. in the spirit of that thought, i like to ask about the department of homeland security secure border initiative. it was created to bolster the southern border, with a variety of high-tech technologies, physical infrastructure, and border enforcement officers. the program was designed to secure 700 miles of the southern border by i think the year 2005, at a cost of close to $900 million. i tnk this included the new metal fists -- the new metal fencing and various surveillance technologies. i am told of the 700 promise miles of various surveillance equipment, we have deployed it 50 or so miles of the anticipated 700, at a price of about $750 million. at least this is what i have been told perry i understand that you have frozen that program, the secure border initiative, to try to identify and more cost-effective way forward. i want you to discuss with us how we can get a better bang from the taxpayer's pocket and what we ought to do going forward. >> the so-called sbi-net program i froze. it was presumed to death one fixed technology to use across the border at tremendous cost. we stopped at one small sector, and we have done it is said let's purchase off the shelf mobile technologies that are available now that we can equip our people with now you will have different types of geography, different populations, and so forth. every sector has to develop their technology plan for how they will use the funds freed up by not investing in the system. i cast for the technology plan from arizona because it had the greatest need. we are making those procurements now d then we are moving over the course of the year. >> how will you measure success? >> it is the question that has dominated the hearing today. a number of ways, one of which is apprehensions of individuals and drug traffickers. one is the ability to increase, to be a force multiplier so that we are able once we spot somedy to immediately go out and pick them up. those are the kin of things that would be added to the max. >> ok. about every day, we see more violence along the border with mexico. i think we are partly to blame for that. it is the exchange of drugs for a balanced -- guns. i was down there a little over a year ago. in california and i talked to a number of the folks who were working down there at. we are having patrol agents being shot at more frequently, patrolling some of the harshest terrains on our continent. i think it is a new trend, which is that agents being killed by drug-traffickers and by cartel members. it is also beginning to become less safe for americans traveling to some of these cities across the border. in your opinion, could you describe for us yourssessment of the escalating violence along the border? has this violence officially spilled over into the united states? >> the states of northern mexico ha been experiencing a serious increase in violent crimes, especially homicides, over the last several years related to the determination by the president to take on the cartels. cartel on cartel violence as they fight over limited territory. it has resulted -- it has spread to other states. when i say a safe and secure border region, that border on our side, we have about 7 million people live along the border, we have a much higher number that live in mexico along the border. we are really working with mexico. we met with their leadership last friday. our men and women in the border patrol have very dangerous work and we are supporting them, making sure they are well- equipped and well trained. you have given us the resources to help do that and that is very, very important break while we have had isolated incidences of violence from northern mexico, if you take atep back and look at everything, the police reports, the numbers, they did not indicate that we have a plague of spillover violence. >> thank you. can i ask you for one more minute would you take a man and to give me some good takeaways from what you -- would take a minute to give me some good takeaways? >> a summation of your argument. >> it is a great job. >> would you say that is the greatest job you've had so far? >> i would say that i have always had great jobs. >> so have the rest of us. >> we talked about osama bin laden and we have current and seamless exchange of intel right now and if i am so advised, i will raise the advisory level, but i've not been so biased. -- have not been so advised. we have different strategies at both borders, but they continue to be works in progress. we cannot deal with border security without dealing with interiornforcement and immigration reform. they are related. >> good. thank you so much. >> thank you, senator prate madam secretary, thank you for your testimony. my confidence in you continues to rise. >> thank you. >> i will keep the record of the hearing opened for 15 days for additional questions and statements. >> the pentagon held an off camera briefing for reporters with more details about the killing of osama bin laden by u.s. forces. we are joined on the phone by one of the reporters who was in the room, "washington times" national security editor. what did you find out? >> a lot of new details are coming out. this was a briefing by a senior intelligence official who disclosed there were lots -- was lots of new information about al qaeda. they said the group had been damaged by the death of bin laden, but that they still remain a threat. al qaeda has 20 leaders that have been killed. their top leader is dead. when al qaeda made the announcement, according to this official, they did not name a successor. there were some details about how the no. 2 al qaeda leader, i meant al-zawahri was not popular with the group. -- ayman al-zawahri is not popular with the group. >> we are showing some of the home video would -- and video footage. what did they say about these home videos and the way they identified bin laden? >> this was part of what they said was the largest intelligence take from a senior al qaeda leader that there's ever been since 9/11. there were five videos. the first was a video that was a message to america from bin laden. they showed about one minute of video from that. they did not release the audio. the senior official said we did not want to be in the position of replaying propaganda. it contained the common themes of al qaeda and their typical message. there were two short videos of a statement by bin laden. the most interesting one was bin laden himself watching a small television monitor with the video footage of himself and ayman al-zawahri at a mountain place, a video that has been shown many times. what was unique was that bin laden's beard was completely gray. in the videos they showed earlier, his beard had been dyed black. in the video they showed, it was great. when an official was asked a question about if his beard was great when he was killed, they said yes. those are the kind of detailed we are getting. >> you said they said this marks the demise of al qaeda. what about the plans for future attacks that they have found? >> the most immediate plan of attack was the one that was announced prematurely by the u.s. government this week. there was a plot to go after trains. that is raising a few suspicions. it is not a typical mass casualty attack. they talked about tipping over a train. they are just at the beginning point of exploiting this new intelligence. they created an interagency task force that will be going over all of the minute details. when the highest priorities for this task force will be to find out if there are any in its attack plans. this is standard procedure in any kind of big intelligence break through, what is the immediate threat to united states or allied countries or a future al qaeda at that? > greater than greater -- teacher al qaeda attack -- for a future al qaeda attack. one thing i asked was whether or not they had received any confirmation about concerns that al qaeda was seeking to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. the official said that this is one of the things they will be looking at closely to try to determine. >> did they mention at all how the u.s. is going to deal with pakistan going forward? >> it is a touchy subject. my sense is that the u.s. government is trying to maintain the relationship that half pakistan. -- they have with pakistan. they have allowed us to do drone attacks in pakistan. there are people in congress that say we should cut off the aid to pakistan. that is a question. the official danced around the question and gave a qualified answer that from the material they had obtained, there was no evidence that the pakistani government was aware of bin laden. when asked if there could be other elements in pakistan that supported bin laden, that was a little less clear. the official referred to the comments earlier this week of a senior administration official who said that it appeared that bin laden had to have some type of support network in pakistan to be able to operate their and cannot be detected. one of the big takeaways from the briefing was -- and this was reported in the "washington times" first -- bin laden's compound was a central command for al qaeda. al qaeda had sometimes been versified and the centro al qaeda appeared to be less important than in places -- centro al qaeda has diversified and was less important than in yemen or other places. it makes it clear that osama bin laden was an act commander for terrorist activities from this compound. >> we appreciate the information. we do have some of that video of osama bin laden released by the pentagon earlier today on our website, c-span.org. next, a discussion of the results and the impact of canadian parliamentary elections, courtesy of cpac, canada's public affairs channel. the conservative party has a majority in parliament for the first time. the democratic party came in second place ahead of the liberal party. here is a one hour look at what is next for canada. >> the prime minister told the governor general that he would be ready to swear in a new cabinet by mid march. >> can you tell us when parliament will be coming back and what your priorities will be. >> have not decided yet. we will consult with the public and we are preparing to form a government. >> there is the prime minister. he was at the governor general's president earlier today. he has a majority government today. it is partly due to the effort of the immigration minister. he was the man responsible for the conservative party's outreach strategy to ethnic communities. that strategy drew a lot of attention before the election when an internal party documents surfaced about the detailed approach to targeting ethnic writings. many of those helped give the tories the majority government. i am joined by jason kenney. now that the smoke has cleared, i want to get your evaluation about how your outreach in the election. how successful do you think they were? >> they were very successful. this was a team led by the prime minister. he identified the central priority for our party in government, the need to reflect the diversity of the country in our electoral coalition. i think we succeeded in that. to back up its debt, according to the canada elections survey, in 2004, the democrats had a lead. in the 2006 campaign, that went down to a 20 point advantage. i am certain that those born abroad -- we had a significant lead on election day this year. >> which one the thank you won as a result of this strategy? >> you can look at the demographics of these writ ings and they are diverse. one election had the winner go up from 49% to 58%. she won be strong majority. we won in vancouver south. you can look in bramptonand half of the population -- brampton and the south asian communities. we won by large margins. we were losing by 25,000 votes in 2006. >> one of the candidates said this whole out which program to ethnic canadians was all about a liberal monopoly over new canadian voters. you still need this program. it is still need to be targeting and having a conservative effort to target ethnic voters? a lot of people say no. >> let me say a word about this notion of targeting. i find the liberal criticism of our efforts to reach out more than hypocritical. it is distasteful. they are the party that monopolized and took advantage of new canadians and cultural communities. when conservatives do it, the liberals refer to it as the ferry is targeting. when they do it, it is nation- building. it is marketing. a political party needs to communicate the message to the target audiences. in some cases, there are canadians who pursue their information in non-official languages. we talk to them about issues that matter to them. we reach out at the events. there is nothing nefarious about that. it is a natural part of politics. we make his breakthrough because the liberals took for granted new canadians in culture -- in cultural communities for so long. we will reflect the interests and values of new canadians. our approach has not been based on what some people call pen during our community specific appeal. it has been based on a fundamentally honest pitch which is, vote your values. if you believe that hard work should be rewarded through lower taxes, you are probably conservative. if you have respect for religious freedom and law and order, you are probably a conservative. we find an alignment with new canadians and the conservative party. that is why we found -- we saw this breakthrough in the campaign. >> you are the immigration minister and we may be having a cabinet shuffle soon. will you be introducing a bill to crack down on him and smuggling? they said it violated the charter rights. will you be introducing backed -- introducing that? >> the prime minister is committed to introducing it as a prime piece of legislation. there is a possibility of a summer travel season for the smugglers. >> let me ask you another question. we mentioned springdale. we were there with your candidate. he was saying to people publicly that he employed people to help people in the constituency with their visa applications. we discussed it. what do you think about a candidate? a candidate helping people with the writing of visa applications? what you make of it? >> decisions on these applications are always and only made by professional members of the canadian public service. they are not made by the minister mp's our candidates. in the brampton area, you have a lot got folks who are new canadians and have family and friends visit, the number one issue is immigration case work. a candidate from any party going door-to-door is inevitably going to get flooded with requests for information and help. the candidate can either say, i am here to ask for your old ted. i am not here to answer your -- i am just here to ask for you vote. they can provide advice on immigration related matters as long as they do not take pay back for it. that is perfectly legal. candidates from all parties probably do that. candidates are here to be helpful to people. a lot of people are going to him is because their local incumbent was not helpful. i have heard that in that constituency. she lost by 10,000 votes. >> what is your relationship with yourgill? he says -- what is your relationship with mr. gill? >> he is a candidate. i have worked with them in the party. he is a good guy. my relationship is the same as it is with other conservative candidates. i support them and i provide them with political advice. none of them have any kind of influence on the decisions made on visas and other immigration matters. >> they hired people to help constituents in the day -- in the middle of an election campaign. is that proper? he said he had three people working on visa applications. you are regulating the immigration industry. is that proper? >> again, it is. is permissible for individuals to provide voluntary advice to the folks on immigration matters. if they are paid, they have to be a licensed member of the designated regulatory body. i understand people were not being paid. >> in terms of the candidate, does that also into the realm of is there a quid pro quo or an understanding that you are getting things? here is a demand for services and there is a voted coming up. >> visa decisions are made in an unfettered way. i cannot express an opinion on a visa application. there's no way a candidate can do that. people come to a candidate and say, my brother is submitting a visa application. what should they put on its? they can say, you need to provide this information. providing that kind of information is entirely legitimate under our legal framework. there is nothing that says candidates cannot be helpful to their constituents. >> a lot of people talk about your majority government now. is it harder to deal with issues, socially conservative issues? i am think about the big ones. things like abortion and same- sex marriage. is it harder for you to resist pressure on your party to reopen questions like that? >> our policy, our platform has been cleared.. we are not proposing legislation on abortion as a government. we have had that discussion in the last three or four election campaigns. our policy platform is clear. the prime minister has been clear about that. from time to time, there are bills that are introduced that are on moral issues. there was a bill to legalize euthanasia. the tradition has always been in all parties to have free votes on those matters. member should declare their stance on those issues in front of their constituents. there might be a lot of mp's who will be bringing forward bills of that nature. i hope they will be dealt with on a 3 vote basis. >> congratulations on your personal victory. we will talk to you again. thanks a lot. one of the other big stories in this election was the aren't wave -- orange wave or the orange crush. the party gained 66 new seats. that shattered previous records. most of the seats came from quebec. almost every new mp is a first- time parliamentarian. beguine- -- peggy nash is a new parliament member. congratulations on winning back your writing in toronto. tell us about your win. are you part of this orange crush? >> thank you for your congratulations. i believe the national campaign helped us in parts of toronto. jack layton's appeal to people to reach out for change into believe we can do better in canada and our platform that was pragmatic and measured spoke to the need for greater affordability for canadian families, getting concrete things done. that played a big role in our win. >> you are also party president. do you have to step down? what comes next? will you stay on as president? >> no, i will not. we have a convention coming up next month. at that time, we will have elections for party president. i will not run again. i will have enough to do with my mp duties. >> as one of the few new mp's, are you concerned about the level of experience of these new 65mp's. -- 65 mp's. one is a teenager and one is in his 20's. >> it is good to bring energy and creativity and new imagination to federal politics. we were talking about how to engage young people. we just elected a number of young people. that is a terrific bang. not everybody has to have the same experience. we will have a group of mp's that represent the diversity of canadians and will bring a variety of perspectives. new people getting elected for the first time -- we will have a learning curve. i've had a learning curve when i was first elected. that is part of any new position that anyone would come and to. those of us who have more experience will reach out and work with them. let me also say, there are people getting elected with the first time who are leaders, who are committed to leaders, aboriginal leaders, keen legal minds, people have a variety of experience. just because someone is being elected for the first time as a member of parliament does not mean they bring -- they do not bring a wealth of experience with them. >> in some corners and some circles, people are saying, people did not expect to be elected and did not expect to give the time to become a member of parliament. people are saying, they are going to -- are they going to be fully engaged in their functions. do you think there's going to be a cracking of the whip and a reading of the riot act to a few of them so that you all are on the same page? >> whenever you have a moved or changed, people get elected hoops did not think they had a chance of getting elected. that can happen. i have a lot of confidence in the ability of those who were selected to run, people who met the test of getting beat voters to endorse them -- of getting the voters to endorse them. all of the members of parliament will turn their attention to the demanding job of representing their constituency and it will perform to the best of their ability. i am excite is for them. i am very excited about it. the diversity of experiences, the age differential -- it is great to have young people engaged in politics. i think it will be a breath of fresh air. i think it will reflect a change. that is what canadians voted for. >> you were the industry critic for your party. you were involved in the effort to block the foreign takeover of radio sat. the government decided to block that. would you be interested in the industry portfolio as industry critic again? >> that is not my decision, obviously. it is up to the leadership of the party to define who fits best in what portfolio. i certainly did enjoy the work of industry critic. i am thrilled that donald that weiler -- that it is thriving today. it is home to many highly skilled workers. it is creating cutting edge, some of the best space technology anywhere in the world. it is a canadian success story. it is something i was proud to play a small part in. i am sure what ever i am called upon to do, whatever portfolio or capacity, it will be exciting as well. there is a lot of work to do. we will roll up our sleeves and try to give as much a chief for canadians as we can in the upcoming parliament. >> there has been much celebration in your ranks about the incredible historic precedent you have set for your party. 102 members of the official opposition. compared to the last time you sat in parliament, you are now in the majority government. you are the opposition, but you will not have the same leaders to stop the government on major issues. -- levers to stop the government on major issues. >> i am terrifically proud of the campaign we ran and what we have achieved. it is breathtaking to see the number of new democrat in peace -- mp's have elected across the country. i have been in a smaller caucus and have seen them rolled new democrats can play in the house of commons. the donald detweiler story is one example. we have been clear that we will work with whatever parliament to get things done for canadian families. we will try to reach out to conservatives and other party members. there are ways to build bridges and get things done. we do not write anybody off because of the party. jack clayton's history is to get things done, sometimes against all odds. i know we will have a tremendously talented caucus with a lot of energy and motivation. we have a clear set of goals we want to achieve. we will find every avenue we can to move forward with the goals. >> we will be watching with interest. thank you for speaking with us tonight. the collapse of liberal party and among the election is still being discussed. many questions are being asked like, how did the party lose 43 seats? what went wrong? what will become of the party? who will take over as leader? joining me from toronto is dr. carolyn bennett. she saw many fellow liberals from toronto down in defeat. thank you for taking the time. i will ask the question i am sure you have bounced yourself and many past year. -- you have asked yourself and many have asked you. what happened? >> the main thing was the orange crush eight into -- ate into what many liberals needed in order to win. in a lot of our ridings, there is a conservative court of 30%. when the liberal morality gets eaten up from the left as well, we lost a lot of good numbers of parliament. >> what does the orange crush or waive mean? >> i think we had a really good platform that appealed to traditional, strategic voters. our leader performed extremely well. with the excitement around the rise of the mvp in quebec, a lot of traditional supporters decided it would be ok to vote mvp this time. there have been a lot of calls from people saying that they thought he would be ok even if they voted mvp. it is clear now that was not the case. >> is that the opposite of strategic voting? and you saying they did not want it? >> high and saying they felt free to vote mvp and got a conservative. in toronto and london, the number of people that voted ndp allow the conservative to come through. >> many people are explaining in different ways. are there deeper questions being asked of yourselves, the leader, and the caucus? was this the right time for an election? >> a shop owner said to me in the first weeks of the campaign that he would have lost a total respect for parliament if we had not taken down the government that was in contempt of parliament. it was extraordinarily important that this election -- it was very necessary. the previous elections were not necessarily the same. there were the opportunistic elections before. if you care about a parliamentary democracy, people can second guess all they want, i think most of us would have been very uncomfortable when there have been two speakers' rulings on content. we as parliamentarians have to stand up for our rights and ability to hold government to account. 35 or 36 days is not a lot of time to teach civic literacy 1 01. a lot of canadians think they elect a president. they watch cnn. when you actually go on the streets and talk to people about parliament and government, it is put together in their brain. they do not understand that the commons must have the ability to hold government to account. this is a very concerning thing for those of us about the government that does not think it has to play the rules. we will have four years to explain to canadians how it is supposed to work. hopefully we will get our act together as the liberal party and get back in touch with grass-roots and the kind of civic engagement and a citizen engagement that will allow people to become involved in our democracy. >> what will it take to rebuild? you just alluded to it with getting back to the grassroots. i heard the party presidency there is still a question as to when you will hold the leadership convention. everyone is talking about rebuilding. what will it take to rebuild in terms of seats and popular votes? >> this election has shown a lot of motivated liberals. governor dean spoke to our convention about the state solution. we need a 300 a solution. liberals wherever they live will feel comfortable and proud to be liberals. we also need to be a will to engage the people that care about the things we care about, having a practical and prudent approach to the economy as well as being able to look after one another in a better way. families are working harder and feel they are staying in the same place or falling behind. we need to engage all of the people you care about thinks that the people who care about the environment and affordable houses -- and we need to explain they should feel comfortable with us. we will listen to them and be able to harvest their. ideas and put them into our public policy. >> i am hearing you say what you have been saying for 37 days. you had developed platform and a leader that was articulate. it did not sell. what is missing? how will you reinvent yourself. what will the new element be? >> it is tough to do in 36 days. we have to show real accountability with citizens between now and the next election. we have to show them we're listening and do things differently in terms of using the whole team as opposed to this campaign. 70% of the media coverage was about polling. another 10% or 20% was about interest in horse races. this is no time, apparently, to discuss politics. we have got to do a better job making sure that people are ready to discuss policy and look at what is on offer from each kind of government as opposed to this horserace pulling -- polling, horserace stuff. we ended up failing in our ability to persuade canadians about what we were putting on offer. we felt it was a better offer. >> yesterday, there was announced that stepping down. i do not know if you have heard anything about how long it will take to pick a new one. any names? >> i am not considering it. you are quite right about whether it is short or long term. i think we will pick an interim leader on wednesday. we want to know whether it will be for five months. the constitution says they have to meet within 25 days. we will set a date within five months to pick a new leader. i think there are a lot of people thinking that now that we have four years, maybe that is too fast. maybe a lot of the rebuilding of the party needs to take place first. i think a lot of the party is trying to determine if the motion would allow the interim leader to stay longer. there is often civil war when it comes to leadership races. we have to get away from this messiah complex of choosing a leader that can come in and ride to victory without a foundation is in place within the party. >> this has been a second party where people have said the party leadership has preceded the rebuilding. this is the second time we have heard that. you are saying he would like to see and launder rebuilding process before a leader comes on? >> i think that is what we are saying -- you would like to see a longer rebuilding process before a leader comes on? >> i think that is what we're seeing. there are a lot of really good things. we crisscrossed the country and did round tables. there are a lot of things that have not been implemented. we need to have the party take a look at that to see if there are other things we can do. we can look to the policy process and make sure that members of our party do not feel there is some potted plant at a rally but that there will be good ideas that will be put into better public policy and ideas in terms of the genuine relationship. membership should have more than it should have some input. >> there has been discussion uniting the forces left of center. what is your opinion about that? you have talked about rebuilding the party. does that include discussions with people in the ndp party? >> i think it has articulated that it cannot just be -- people are talking about it anyway. most of us feel we have a real role as the liberal party of canada with proper values in terms of. in economics and compassionately looking after one another. we are right on some things and left on others. we have a role to play in being able to go forward with the mandate we have been given in terms of our constitution and liberal values shared across the country. you just have to talk to liberals in alberta, they are proud to be liberals. we have to look at all kinds of things, including electoral reform and alternative votes. there are many things that are the consequence that others are talking about long before we end up with any conversation about merger. i think most people feel that is a long way off and probably not the optimal outcome for our party. to come together on a policy conference or the things that progressives want to discuss is more interesting, particularly as we see what the u.k. does on the alternative route. there are a lot of things the progressive parties have in common that are worth discussing. i do not think that means governance. >> i look forward to speaking to you again. congratulations on your victory monday night. >> we're going to finish with a look at the new political landscape with two members of the press gallery. we have the two bureau chiefs. >> well, to the show. we have had maybe two days to let the smoke cleared. i am going to ask you something that has elicited all sorts of answers. what stands out the most to you from the election? >> for me, it was the block. i knew they would do well, i did not expected to be reduced to less than official party status. i was quite floored by that particular result. i knew they were going to get reduced significantly. i do not know how many people would have predicted they would have been at 34 seats. >> the same thing for me. this election was unbelievable. even the defeat of the most powerful leader a few months ago in quebec who is now no more, the questions from media, he is a private citizen now and does not want to have anything to do with the media. that will change dynamics now. we have federalist forces back in quebec. that is different for the country. critics -- >> he has been there 20 years. he will not be there now. he was so at ease with the french media. that is all going to be gone. >> the budget will be reduced considerably. the subsidy they get from the state will be abolished by steven harper now that he has the majority. there will be financial troubles along the way. it will be different for both parties. >> then there is the natural segue of what you expect from the new government. >> they do not have official party status. they will get a few questions during the official question period. i am hearing that many canadians are happy about it. they never wanted a separatist voiced in a nationalist parliament. i think it will be interesting that the ndp has never been in the slime line before. any separatist talk from quebec will be huge. >> within the new caucus, there are people who have voted yes in referendum. we may see some moving around within the caucus. let's get to the second question. what should we be looking for from the harbor government? >> you mentioned the political funding. >> the most pressing thing would be the new cabinet formed within the next 10 days. the new session will be very short. then the budget tabled in march was rejected by the three opposition parties. people will take a break in the summer and come back in full force in september. >> prime minister harper has been promising things. there has been talking will include in the budget changes to party financing, removing the subsidy. >> i doubt it will be exactly the same. he made some promises that people were wondering about that was not in the budget before. some of that may be there now. they said the health care of money was in the budget but it was not talk about. i do not expect a lot of major changes. the thing i am looking for is to see what the tone is when they come back. the tone in the last two was so negative and nasty. they are trying to get over that since the election. they have the majority now. they do not have to look over their shoulders about being defeated. they are even saying this is going to change how they behave and act. it will be a little less confrontational. i would love it. i am skeptical. it is very inbred in the people there. >> the government will have to add $2.2 billion for combat. they promised to solve the issue before september 15. that is a big chunk of money that will be added to the budget next month. i also expect the tories to behave in a more adequate manner. >> self preservation. >> that brought them to such a combative tone. they are not fighting for survival for the next week return to fight an election. i think mr. harbert will have a more positive tone. -- mr. harper will have a more positive tone. >> do you think there will be changes in terms of the giving out of information? >> email answer more questions. he did answer more questions than throughout the campaign. -- he may answer more questions. i think we will see more relaxing of that. they got here this way. controlling is how they got here and kept increasing. i do not expect to see a lot of lapsing back. >> regarding the future of the liberals, there has been talked about possible discussions with left-of-center progressive forces. other liberals are talking about recovering, rebuilding, and a new leader. what should we be watching for? >> pushing for one person to take over on an interim basis. >> knocking him out of the .unning > >> he has interests. he is pushing for him to lead the party. >> the liberal party will not have a new leader before 18 months. the liberal party is broke down. before the election, they spent about $21 million. afterwards, they have some debt. they will have less money to pay that. >> i heard the party president yesterday alluding to that. they do not want to have a real leadership race in the short term. they would rather put it off for awhile. >> they cannot have one immediately. if they rush into it, they will end up with a similar problem to what they have been having. they need to take the time to rebuild and look back on why that -- what they did wrong. they have a lot of work to do. they have a lot of soul- searching to do. they cannot do it quickly. >> she claims if you a content analysis, she said 70% were stories that concerned the race. 20% was on leaders. it was very focused on policy and platforms. frustration i sensed from her was an elaborate plot form with specific options spelled out that they tried to articulate. but it did not work. >> they were under attack 14 years by the tories. that did leave an impression among canadians. trying to fight that in 35 days, you cannot do it. you cannot reverse of -- and brutal attack of tv viewers in 35 days. -- you cannot reverse a brutal attack of two years in 35 days. " you cannot undo it in a month. it is impossible. the new reality for campaigns -- they released their platform on day eight. got a lot of coverage. there was a lot of uptick on twitter from students who liked the idea. then we moved on. nothing been produced every day was new. in the media sector now, you need something new and newsworthy. reporting on something we knew three weeks ago, it is hard to keep the dialogue going. >> stefan stepped down and had a long press conference. he warned against having negative ads. maybe this time around, it will be jack layton. is nothing learned? is this a new style of politics ? remembe >> it was not just that the liberals were being attacked. they never responded. they probably did not have the money to respond. 47 years, the airwaves were packed with ads saying that he loved america more than canada and was an elitist. you never really heard anything from him until the election. -- for years, you heard those things. they have to respond right away. >> i agree. it was like somebody was trying to fight a tank with a flame thrower. you cannot win the war like that. you have to put your best efforts into fighting those kinds of tactics . >> you seem to be suggesting getting back in the trenches to sell the party. >> the liberals got away from that. they seem to understand the need to do that. >> the years of touring did not work? >> if he had done that in the first year, it may have had a bigger impact. by the time he did that, he had already been defined by the conservatives. >> there is a lot to watch. we still do not have the date on the return of parliament. >> it is probably going to be may 30 at the earliest. >> i do not think he knows yet. >> stay tuned. thank you both for sharing your thoughts. that is all the time we have for this edition of "prime-time ."litics turturr thank you for watching. >> this weekend, the former utah governor and former ambassador to china delivers the commencement address at the university of south carolina. south carolina is the first southern state to hold the presidential primary. what this sunday -- you can watch this sunday. >> the pentagon held an off camera briefing for reporters about more details of the killing of a some of the modern by u.s. forces. we're joined on the phone by one of the reporters in the room. bill, what did you find out? >> lots of new information and a lot of details are coming out. this was a briefing by a senior intelligence official who disclosed that there was a lot of new information about al qaeda. they said the group has been damaged by the death of been on, but that it remains a threat. my own take away from the briefing was that al qaeda is in its death throes. 20 of their leaders have been killed. the top leader is now dead. when al qaeda made the announcement, according to this official, they did not name a successor or. there were details in there about how the number two appears not to be the person who will take over the leadership role. >> we are showing some of the home video footage taken from pakistan. what did they say about the home videos and a way that identified him? >> they said this was the largest intelligence take from the senior al qaeda leader since 9/11. there were five videos. the first was a message to america from osama bin laden. they showed about one minute of video. they did not release the audio. the senior official said we do not want to be in the position of replacing propaganda. they said there were some time worn in some of al qaeda and their typical message. there were two short videos showing a takes of a prepared statement by osama bin laden. the most interesting one was bin laden himself watching a small television monitor with video footage of himself. that is a video that has been shown many times. what was unique is that his beard was completely gray. in the videos they showed earlier, his beard had yed black. been die in the video they showed, it was black. one of the reporters asked if when he was killed in his beard was great. they said yes. that is the kind of detail we are getting. >> what about plans for future attacks that they might have found? >> the most immediate plan of attack was announced prematurely by the u.s. government this week. there was a plot to go after trends. that is raising suspicions. it is not the typical mass casualty attacke. they are just a beginning point of exploiting the new intelligence. they created a task force that will be going over the details. one of the highest priorities will be to find out if there are immediate attack plans. this is standard procedure for any kind of intelligence breakthrough, what is the most immediate threat to the united states and other allied countries from a future of pay that attack. >> will that help them learn how to prevent future attacks? >> i think the material will provide enough information that they will be able to forestall some talks. there will be discussions of targeting. one question i asked the senior official was whether or not they received confirmation about concerns the al qaeda was seeking to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. the official said clearly this was one thing they would be looking at closely to try and determine. >> at the pentagon, did they mention how the u.s. will deal with pakistan going forward? >> it is a touchy subject, obviously. my sense is that the u.s. government is trying to maintain the relationship they have with pakistan. there are benefits to that. they have been allowing us to do covert strikes against terrorists. there is also a groundswell of congressional support that would say we should cut off the $3 billion to aid in pakistan a year. the official danced around the question and gave a qualified inserts -- answer that from the material obtained, there was no evidence the pakistani government was aware of bin laden. when asked if there were other elements in the country that could have supported him, that was less clear. a senior administration official said it appears that bin laden had to have some sort of support network in pakistan to re and not be detected. one of the big takeaways from the briefing was the the compound and his hideout was a command center, central command headquarters for al qaeda. u.s. officials have been saying that al qaeda had diversified and the central al qaeda it appeared to be less important than many affiliate's in places like yemen and somalia. this briefing made it clear that osama bin laden was an active commander for terrorist activities from this compound. >> we appreciate the information. on sunday, a former navy seal. he became a member of the underwater demolition and seal team following his 1967 graduation from the u.s. naval academy. he acts as an advisor to the commander of the u.s. special operations command. we will talk to him at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. you can access our programming any time with the c-span radio iphone ap. the programming is commercial free. you can listen to our signature programs each week. it is available around the clock wherever you are. download it for free from the app store. >> here is a look at how high school students are preparing to take the ap government exam on tuesday. this is about 40 minutes. are two teachers have been on for the past few years to help those of you taking the ap government exam. andrew conneen and daniel larsen from adlai e. stevenson high school. welcome back. when is the test? guest: next tuesday. it is a big day for students. host: what our students doing this weekend? guest: there are cramming for the exam. we have a lot of students tweeting in their questions. here is how we will breathis down. host: if you live in the eastern and central time zones, you can call this number -- if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones, you can call this number -- start calling right now because we will take as many calls as we can. if you want to send us an e- mail, journal@c-span.org. #cspanwj on twitter. guest: alternately, this is a vocabulary test. all 60 multiple choice questions will contain a vote count word that drives the prompt. if you can go through your vocabulary list, the critical thgs like foundation, federalism, public opinion, you will have a fighting shot. this is their health weekend. -- hell weekend. guest: yasser understand how the concept interactive. that is high-level thinking where you will get college credit. host: how long the students have to take the tts? what are the rules going in? guest: the test is may 10th. there will be 60 multiple choice items, a short break, then there is 100 minutes to answer four response questions which will cover the entire course. we do not know the questions now. host: with don their preparation,e will go straight to cls. from virginia, good morning. caller: i would like to give a shot out to my friends and teachers and my government teacher, mr. gibbs. can you explain the difference tween concurrent, reserved powers? guest: these words are critically indifference. we're talking about federalism and the overlapping powers between the national and state government. concurrent powers are was that both the national and state governments can do simultaneously. education. our school receives a national, state, and local funding and this is concurrent. reserved powers is more technicay and speaks to the 10th amendment. the 10th amendment provides for the reserved powers. the national government may be supreme, but there are still certain powers reserved to the states. and the 10th amendment, they're not listed specifically and it is open for debate even in the supreme court as to what powers are reserved for the states. guest: it all relates to federalism, the division of power between the national government and state and local government. host: our next call from corona, california. you are up early this morning. go ahead. ller: i would like to give a shout out to my teach, mr. ellis. my question is about the iron triangle. i am having trouble understanding a specific example for the test. guest: it is how policies are made. sometimes behind closed doors, very key policy makers are making the decision. there are the three policy makers, the executive branch, the converse with a subcommittee -- the congress with a subcommittee, and the special-interest groups that trying to lobby the bureaucrats and the lawmakers. in the policy-making were there arvery few voices in the room, it tends to be very fast, very consentual. that can contrast with pluralism which is very slow and contentious. guest: one example is the agricultural issue of farm subsidies. you have the agricultural department and the executive branch working with the house agricultural committee and, let's say, the american dairy association lobbyist to get favorable subsidies for dairy farmers in california. host: from virginia, good morning. caller: i would like to give a shot out to my seventh. government costs. can i say my question now? in the federalist papers, james madin expresses the views of political factions -- should be nurtured by a free nation, should play a man -- minor role in any free nation, are undesirable but inevitable in a free nation, or are necessary to control the masses? guest: i feel like i am taking the st. factions are inevitable, but madison wrote about how our constitution was meant to control those factions. i think that was "c"? guest: the can also be used as anonymously with political interest groups. -- can also be used with political interest groups. this is the debate between and in this society and a pluralist society. we would like to think we are a pluralist society were groups can come together to compete. host: how long have you been studying a? caller: two weeks now. host: how comfortable do you feel in the preparation for next week? caller: i am pretty nervous, but i think -- ok -- i think i will do ok. host: any tips you can offer? guest: students should manage their time on the multiple choice section. for the essay writing, time and not be an issue, but we suggest students pre-rights and of the gatt the buzz words in the concept -- pre-write and look at the buzz words. host: off of twitter, where does it specify that the three branches of government are co- equal? guest: there is no mention in the constitution that one branch supersedes another, but simply by the number of words counted, article i would seem to the legislative branch little more constitutional vigor, however as time and tradition have passed the presidency, with the bully pulpit, has exceeded legislative authority. let us not take that as constitutional law or mandate. the separation of powers are important. checks and balances are meaningful. host: it is a good test prep to go through the list of checks and balances, because i guarantee you some of them will be on the test. host: off of twitter, katie gives a shout out to tuscaloosa. can you explain the different responsibilities of the house and senate? guest: the senate can approve treaties by a two-third vote and gets to approve the appointments of judicial confirmations and also cabinet confirmations by a simple majority. the senate can also take the president out of office. it has never happened. guest: the house is responsible for introducing a revenue bills. the house of representatives was the only part of our government that was directly elected in the beginning, said the founding fathers realize that no taxation without representation that only tax bills could be introduced where we the people rule. guest: kudos to students in alabama in getting for all of this and preparing for this exam. host: an exception made for them with the ability to take the test? guest: if the school has an for structural damage, as they do sometimes delayed the exam. -- the school has infrastructure damage. caller: i went to give a shot out to my teacher. i wonder if you could explain the turning points in history that led up to the woman's right to choose. guest: people are nervous about how many court cases do they need to know and will there be history on the exam. and this is not a history exam. you will not be asked to traverse the tradition of one issue or one policy, but you may be asked, perhaps, to define the landmark case. when we talk about a woman's right to choose, wtalk about the right to privacy and we can be fairly certain there will be a right to privacy question either in the multiple choice or in the as a portion. there are two cases, griswold vs. connecticut and rhode v. wade. -- roe v. wade. caller: a shot out to my teacher. my question is with a new campaign finance reform, how has congress limited the effective interest groups through legislation? guest: interest groups have to register. you cannot lobby just because you want to come to washington, d.c. there are licenses, various registration required. campaign finance is a critical piece. remember, all campaign finance has limits. a lot of times, we get questions on c-span were people assume that these corporations are buying your own politicians. they cannot give money directly to candidates, only individuals, and they are limited by an indexed number of a little more than $2,400 per candidate. guest: the creation of political action committees where th can only raise money and spend it giving it directly to the parties and candidates are known as pac's. guest: they talk about the bagel bill. if you take a member of congress out to breakfast, you are provided from buying anything more than a bagel. host: next caller. go ahead. caller: i would like to give a shout out to my government teacher, m meyer. what is expos facto? guest: the original constitution prohibited that. the bill of retainer is it the congress is going to pass a law to punish someone without a trial is prohibited. expos facto says you're not allowed to punish someone for something that is legal, make it illegal after the fact host: it is kentucky derby day. in the constitution, there are three points that deal with personal civil liberties. prior to the bill of rights. amended and passed, you have expo's facto, the bill of retainer, and therit of habeas corpus. on tuesday, there could be in the frq. habeas corpus, you must be told why you are being held in custody. the bill of attainder, on the right to a trial by court. and expos facto, you cannot be brought in and punished for something you did win at the time it was legal. host: our guests are with us for the next half hour, but if you have questions, you have a web site set up? guest: citizenu.org and we have all kinds of review material. host: this is the first year we have actually done at some type of contest the element. could one of you explain? guest: we went to the supreme court and we picked up a pocket constitution signed by justice stephen breyer. we have a student who wants to call in and try to answer a question correctly that the supreme court or judicial branch, we will try to send this to them. host: here is a simple question. if you want to take a shot at the constitutional question, you tell us right off the bat and you have chance. here is a simple question. which of the following best describes an example of checks and balances as written in the u.s. constitution? you have five options. if you do want to take a shot at this, i will repeat the question and the options and we will see what happens. go ahead and tell the people that you want to do that. as we do that, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. a shout out to my ap government teacher and my class. what are the key concepts that we need to know about the federalist papers and which papers should we review? guest: federalist papers are historical question. they were written by the earlier founders, james madison, etc., to promote the constitution and in those states that were reluctant to ratify, particularly new york. i would not spend time cataloging through the dozens federalist papers. there is one in the particular that will be on the test was likely which is federalist no. 10 dealing with the factions, a republican versus a democracy. you could see another federalist as a reference, but it is unlikely. guest: if there is another one, it will be federalist no. 51 which addresses checks and balances host: off of twitter, what are the inherent wers of the president? which should lead focus on it? also a shot out to mr. clark. guest: they are implied powers not stated in the constitution. a classic example is the louisiana purchase. host: california, go ahead. caller: a shout out to second thperiod mr. ellis. the state legislature controls redistricting, but who controls that from the u.s.? guest: this is a favorite question. everyone is talking about this and local magazines were writing about this. reapportionment is coming out of. a lot of citizens do not understand, but every 10 years a census is taken. the information is taken for the purposes of reapportioning the u.s. congress. the house of representatives is based on population. as populations shift from the congress has to reapportion. in illinois, we currently have 19 memrs of congress. because the congress -- because the population has not kept up, we will lose a member o congress in the 2012 election. how does that happen? the state legislation takes the state appointed number and the redistricting down to 18. they redraw the lines to make sure we do have 18 members of congress. what makes this even more interesting is that this is not done generically or rhythmically. it is done by the state legislature that is controlled by the majority party. if the democratic party controls your state, they will try to redraw the lines to advantage the political party, the majority political party, to benefit an incumbent of that political party. it is gerrymandering and it is a great concept to learn because it is a great way to learn how politics really works in america. host: next to columbus, ohio. chris, go ahead. caller: a shot out to my ap teacher mr. wells. could you explain the differences between civil rights and civil liberties? guest: civil liberties, keep in mind, comes from the bill of rights. specifically the first 10 amendments. there is the issue of selective and corporation which makes the bill of rights applied to the states, so thing like the fourth amendment. or you apply your sixth amendment rights to counsel with gideon vs. wainwright. those are civil liberties. guest: civil liberties and civil rights oftentimes overlap. civil liberties deal with my rights as an individual. civil-rights ulrike to collect and organizations and groups, african-americans, latinos, women's. guest: the 14t amendment and the equal protection clause, brown vs. the board of education. host: 11 chance to take a shot at the question about the constitution to get it pocket constitution signed by justice stephen breyer. 20 minutes left. san jose, californi go ahead. caller: i have a question. am i on? what are the likely topics for the frq's? guest: always look for the rays that the topics can cough -- cross reference. i like the topic of federalism and campaigns. a brilliant question with been how do we see federalism at play in our elections? what national laws are governing elections? they have to take place on the first tuesday after the first monday of november, according to the constitution, and the idea that state and local governments have roles like residency requirements. guest: it has been awhile since we have seen a court's process question. maybe something about the role of four. how many justices does it take? i would not be surprised if you see words like "a majority of opinion," "concurring opion," and the unsigned opinion of the court. i would not be surprised. host: what is the history for unassigned opinions? guest: we will never forget bush to be -- bush v. gore coming out saying it was a procurium. host: off of twitter, can you please explain the difference between a caucus like in ohio and a primary? and a shot out to mrs. chase. guest: the nomination process. some states like ohio have a very famous caucus which has small town meetings where citizens get to pick their preferred presidential candidate from that party. it is a very rare the process. rowdy process. a primary is a secret ballot where party members go in, take five minutes to go vote, then we count the number of votes. guest: we look to the nomination process, it has grown more democratic. the caucus was originally meant forhe elite. over time, in more recent times, primaries have be introduced to allow you, the people, to vote on which candidate they would like to see as the nominee of their party. unfortunately, the elites do more than anywhere else which is dedicated it's tended to be more on the edge of the political spectrum and why the independent votetrs do not like the candidates in the end. caller: a shout out to ms. shapiro. i was wondering if i could take a shot at the constitution question. host: here is the question and the options again. which of the following best describes an example of checks and balances as written in the u.s. constitution? here are the options. caller: it is "b." host: it is. guest: good job. host: the producer will take your information and we will get to the side constitution. did you have a question as far as the test goes? caller: i was wondering if you could tell meore about the 25th amendment and how it has to do with the president being invalidated? [laughter] guest: there are 27 amendments. as we prepare for this test, do we need to know all of them? will i be asked about the 11th amendment? the answer is probably no. i have never seen a 25th amendment question. guest: is how you remove a president for that process. guest: i would focus on the bill of rights, 13th, 14th, 15th amendments known as the civil war amendments, then they suffrage amendments like the 19th and 20th. beyond that, i am not sure all of them are worth cramming r. host: off of twitter, what is the difference between a plurality election and a winner takes all? when is each used? guest: plurality is a great word. oftentimes we say you need a majority, but quite frankly as the president, you only need a majority of the electoral votes. we have certainly had elections in the past where a prison a -- where a president did not win a majority of the popular vote but they won the electoral college and the magic number is 270. guest: plural the means whoever gets the most votes wins. there is no benefit to finish second or third which is another reason why we have two political parties. if we have two political parties, whoever gets the most votes inherently has a majority of. it assures the political efficacy among the voters that they see the winner as someone they voted for. it does not require a majority in any of our elections, but simply a plurality. whoever gets the most votes wins. host: from california, go ahead. san jose? are you there? we go to arlington, virginia. caller: a shout out to my government class. what do we need to know about this for the ap exam? host: hatch act? guest: i have never seen that on the test. what you need to know about free speech is clear and present danger. the government can only use censorship ahead of time if the speech will impose a clear and present danger to national security. guest: let me say something about the track. -- hatch act. our teachers have our own personal favorite pieces of legislation that we teach a concept about. on the frq, i do not think they will use that. t you do need to know about the help america boat act. that is a favorite, but it is not something that the tests will probably think that all students have covered in class. use them on the frq's. u.s examples and that one does distinguish you as a very prominent and well-informed citizen. i do not think it will be in the multiple choice. host: can explain how the electoral college works and why is it used to? guest: many of them some hope it will be changed. the framers wanted to choose the chief executive and they were reluctant to put the choice of our first president in the hands of the common man. they were still a little bit nervous about what the common man would do. they thought they would pick a demagogue or a local celebrity so we credit the electoral college which allows each state to group -- to choose a group of black doors. -- group of electors. 435 in the house, 100 in the senate, 3 in the district. this is why the presidential candidates travel state-by-state trying to win the state. if you win the most votes in any particular state, you get all of that state's electoral vote which is the winner-take-all system. as we said, the first presidential candidate to 270 will be the next president. guest: this is the perfect example of federalism. the constitution proscribes the electoral college but states have rules on this. some states actually have were you can split yr electoral votes, like maine and nebraska. host: citizenu.org is the website they have set up a. you can go there after the program is done for more information. what can they find there? guest: we also have a channel on youtube. we have of bloated dens and dozens of short video clips of us cramming for the exam, not on like this program here where we take a topic like federalism, public opinion, and we will speak to it. we have run a civics tournament where we pick 64 critical words and we have been voting on them for weeks, not unlike the n.c.a.a. tournament and we're now down to the final four. the final game looks to be between selective and corp. and incumbent. we will announce t winner on monday and you can go on there and vote which word is you think the single most important word going into tuesday's test. guest: and use that word as much as you can. guest: selective incorporation versus another 3 seed, incumbency. we had 4 regional brackets. guest: the biggest upset was separation of powers. host: this is the strangest conversation i have ever had. xt caller, go ahead. caller: i would like to give a shout out to my teacher, mrs. scott. i the question on the different types of taxing. ow what dferentwha types of taxing we need to know. guest: i thought he said texting. in terms of taxation, you should certainly know the income-tax which was greeted by a constitutionalmendment and words like excise tax and tariffs. host: this student wants to give a shout out to his teacher. what does the policies should be reviewed? guest: we always grandeur of the new bureaucracy in questions like fiscal and monetary policy -- we always cringe about the bureaucracy questions. know the difference. fiscal policy is about taxing and spending. the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the dicial branch are all involved in passing laws and policies that ultimately require revenue so they have to tax d spend. monetary policy is more independent and coming out of the federal reserve, of which ben bernanke is the chairman. it regulates how much money is in the economy by addressing interest rates. host sturgis, mich., good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you talk about selective incorporation and break it down? guest: it comes from the 14th amendment passed after the civil war and it comes from the process clause of the 14th amendment whh has been more recently interpreted by the supreme court to make most of the bill of rights appld to state governments. remember. originally the bill of rights only applied to the national government. "congress shall make no law," but in the 21st century, the bill of rights to the 14th amendment has been interpreted to apply the state and local governments. host: tucson, ariz., good morning. caller: a shot out to my teacher. i would like to ask what is the source of the governing power? is it the people or the constitution? guest: ware ultimately a nation of law, not men. we have put all of the power of the united states government not in the gregarious personality of our lears but in the amazing document of words, our constitution. with words, we government. we are a nation of limits as much as we talk about how exceptional america i what is exceptional is the founding fathers and our leaders today understand they are bound by law, the constitution, that is over all of us. one is above the law. host: what is the difference between the fact discrimination and de jure segregation? guest: thedea you would have laws restricting our students to go to school and a defacto as more traditional based on tauruses that individual citizens make. example of de jure with the brown vs. the board of education which invalidated racial segregation as prescribed by law in the public schools. host: they also want to give a shout out to southampton high school. we will finish of the last few minutes of a gram for the exam for 2011. good morning. -- cram for the exam. ller: how do sec regulations differ from pax? guest: when you look at limits, you are on the right track. keeping the limits street is not easy. remember the basics. individuals are limited and inxed by inflation. individuals can give a candid it $2,400. that is it. pac's can give a little bit more than that but are also limited. the fec, federal elections commission, regulates all of this. candidates musdisclose every penny they collect. it is all out there, all online. we can check ourselves, but the election system is much more regulated than many citizens think. guest: anytime governmt makes it a whirl about money, there will always be the polls. -- always be loopholes. we make rules about campaign spending, and the most recent is to allow people or groups to give independently as much money as they want. host: do at your class's give pre-tests? guest: we give sample multiple choice questions we have seen from past eight p exams -- past ap exa and predicted questions. host: are their arts and education groups that help with the preparation and offer study guides? guest: there are these test prep organizations, but you can watch previous versions o this cram for the exam on the c-span archives. we know a lot of them have gone back to watch last year's show. host: next caller. good morning. caller: a shout out to ms. martins. my question is how has congress begun to take power back from the presidency of the past few decades? guest: a great question about the checking and balancing of power between the executive and legislative branch. throughout history, there has been an ebb and fw. it is hard to take power back from the president because it relies, so often, on the bully pulpit. as we have seen this week, barack obama has received a bomb in the public opinion poll because he has the ability to make a quick decision. in congress, nothing happens quickly. they do not have the ability of like the president. but congress still has the ultimate power in our government, the power of the purse. at the president goes beyond where the people feel he should, it is not only elections that determine the outcome but congress can call back the budget. we areeeing the tension right now as republicans are trying to hold the president back for budgetary power. guest: there was a law passed in the 197's where they tried to restrict the powers of the president. one was the war powers resolution which made the president notify congress if there were going to use combat troops. he had to notify within 48 hours. the other was the budget reform act of 1974 where they stepped the process of the budget making process and essentially tells the president that the presidt is not a lot to compound budgetary funds. -- not allowed to compound budgetary funds. guest: these are progrsive ideas come a referendum and initiative, d i would not worry about the two but they both did the same thing. they allow the people laid direct voice in government. referendum is ch more popular than the initiative and it allows people on the ballot not just to vote for a candidate but to vote directly on policy. california has made the referendum goldman. it is real passing throughout the country and we will see me and more referendum as we see democracy expand. guest: students should know the difference between a referendum in their republic. a referendum is direct policy. republic is where people elect representatives to make decisions for the government. host: last call from maryland. go ahead. are you there? caller: hello? what is an example of logrolng? why is it necessary? guest: this is a good shot on tuesday that we will see a legislativprocess question and they will use words that we do not use every day unless you live in northern minneso. it is nothing more or less than vote trading. i will slap your back if you slap a mine. i will vote here if you vote for mind. guest: legislation is easier to pass all the members of congress are piling on earmarks so everyone has a piece of the action. host: final thoughts on next weeks test? guest: we are thrilled that all of these teachers are prepping for this exam. we want students to make this a lifestyle, not just one day for the exam. guest: there is no greater title than a citizen. scores of young citizens will on tuday. host: andrew conneen and danl larsen both from satellite stevenson high school. there website is >> discussion on the potential value of intelligence gained from computers seized at osama bin laden's compound. then a look at the 2012 gop presidential field with the democratic strategist and former assistant to george bush. later, reaction in the arab- american community to the killing of osama bin laden with james zogby. that is live here on c-span. on sunday, the former navy seal. he became a member of the underwater demolition and seal teams following his 1967 graduation from the u.s. naval academy. he now acts as an advisor to the commander of the u.s. special operations command. we will talk to him at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. on friday, president obama was at a transmission plant in indianapolis to hear about alternative energy technologies being developed there. he talked about technology and the impact on job creation in his weekly address. we will also hear the republican address by massachusetts senator scott brown. he commands the military and intelligence services of the killing of al qaeda leader osama bin laden and the counter- terrorism efforts to continue in afghanistan. >> i am speaking with you today from the transmission plant at indianapolis, indiana. i came here because this is a place where american workers are doing big an impressive things. the technology they manufacture here already powers nearly 4000 buses all over the world that have saved 15 million gallons of fuel. they will expand new technologies to trucks as well. that means jobs. more than 200 new workers at this plant alone. that is important because even as the economy is growing after one of the worst recessions in our history, even as we have added more than 2 million private sector jobs over the past 14 months, i still meet and hear from americans struggling to get out of their own personal recessions. a lot of folks out there are still looking for work. many folks who do have jobs are finding paychecks are not keeping up with the rising cost of everything from tuition, to grocers, to gas prices. in a lot of places like here in indiana, and gases reached an all-time high. the economy has not been the focus of the news this week. but not a day goes by that i am not focused on your jobs, a hoax, and dreams. that is why i came here to allison transmission. these are the jobs of the future. they pay well right here in america. it is clean energy companies like this that will keep our country rolling and make sure that america remains the most prosperous nation in the world. allison is also part of the solution to high gas prices. there are no quick fixes to the problem. in the short term, we're doing everything we can to boost safe and responsible oil production at home. last year, american oil production reached the highest level since 2003. over the long term, the only way we can avoid being held hostage to the ups and downs of oil prices is if we reduce our dependence on oil. that means investing in clean, alternative sources of energy. that means making cars and trucks that use less oil. other countries know this. they are going all in to invest in clean energy technologies and jobs. i do not want other countries to win the competition for these technologies and jobs. i want america to win. i want america to win the future. we're in a tough fiscal climate. it is tempting to cut back on investments in clean energy. i agree the only way we will be able to afford the things we need is to cut what we do not and live within our means. but i refuse to cut investments likely in the energy that will help us compete. i refuse to cut investments they're making it possible for plants like this one to grow and add jobs across america. we can do this. i do not just believe that because i see it happening in plants like this. i believe that because i believe in the americans making it happen in places like this. i am optimistic about our economic future. for all of the challenges we face, america is still home to the most entrepreneurial, industrious, most determined people on earth. there is nothing we cannot accomplish when we set our minds to it. that is what we will keep doing as long as i have the privilege of being your president. thank you and have a great weekend. >> i am scott brown. hyatt the honor of representing massachusetts in the u.s. senate. -- i have the honor of representing massachusetts in the u.s. senate. we heard president obama deliver the message that americans have been waiting for since september 11, 2001. it is a rare thing when people across the world observe the loss of life was something other than regret. this man chose his fate long before in a life filled with cruelty. if he expected mercy when our forces found him, that was asking much more than he was ever known to give. this was a man who rejoiced in the suffering and death of others. he set in motion all the horror and grief of 9/11 and considered it to be just a start. he was a teacher of evil. for him, the lesson is over. it does not in the fulfilment of a fanatical vision, but in the depths of the arabian sea. none of this can compensate for the lives of the victim or the sorrow of those who still mourn. but it counts for something. it is always a victory when justice has the final word. his killing was a result of coordinated efforts going back years. it came to the dramatic conclusion with intelligence gathering that began long before. the operation was a model of sustained, concentrated military action. the example will not be lost on other terrorists. any escape they make will be temporary. any sanctuary they find will be uncovered. those who harm or threaten the american people will be dealt with on our terms, however long it takes. this was the pledge of president george w. bush in the days after 9/11. he kept it in seven years of relentless, defensive action against the al qaeda network. in the case of bin laden, it fell to president obama to give the final order. he did so calmly and decisively. it was a fine moment for our commander in chief and our country. this past week has reminded us of the skill and special courage of those who choose to take on the toughest missions in service to america. our combat forces are the ones we call when the need is the greatest. they give their all and seek no special praise for what they do. they're the best we have. it was great news on sunday night that the mission to kill bin laden succeeded in every man came back safely. the men and women of the armed services have sacrificed so much already in the war on terror. as much as we all wish it could be ended as permanently as the career of osama bin laden, the war goes on. it's still demands our attention and commitment to victory. the troops surged has made a difference in afghanistan. we cannot surrender the gains to what is left of the taliban. america and our allies devastated the al qaeda network in afghanistan. al qaeda is still over there. we need to prepare the afghan security forces to protect their own people. we must ensure that afghanistan does not begin become a sanctuary for terrorists. after many years, there is a temptation to despair of ever gaining a final victory against our enemies. if we have learned anything this past week, it is that our patient commitment to even the hardest objectives will be rewarded. we all heard it said that bin laden was beyond our reach in a remote corner of the earth. let me tell you that it is always a mistake to bet against american resourcefulness and termination. these qualities led us to the man who started the war. they will lead us to victory in the war. as always, the credit will belong to the skill and courage of the armed forces of the united states of america. may god bless them all. may she always watch over the country that they serve. -- may he always watch over the country that they serve. this is senator scott brown. thank you for listening. >> the pentagon held an off- camera briefing for reporters with more details about the killing of osama bin laden by u.s. forces. we're joined on on the phone by one of the reporters in the room. bill, what did you find out? >> lots of new information and details are coming out. this was a briefing by a senior intelligence official who disclosed was lots of new information about al qaeda. they said the group has been damaged by the death of bin laden but remains a threat. my own take away was that al qaeda is in its death throes. 20 of their leaders have been killed over the past couple of years. their top leader is now dead. when al qaeda made the announcement, according to this official, they did not name a successor. there were some details in there about how the number two al qaeda leader is not popular with the group. he appears not to be the person who will take over the leadership role. >> we are showing some of the home video footage taken from pakistan. what did they say about the home videos and the way they identified bin laden/ >> they said this was the largest intelligence take from a senior al qaeda leader since 9/11. there were five videos. the first was a video that was a message to america from bin laden. they showed about one minute of video from that. they did not release the idea. the senior official said we do not want to be in the position of replacing propaganda. they said it was some time warm things of al qaeda time worn things about credit and their typical message. their work out takes of a prepared statement by -- there were outtakes of a prepared statement by bin laden. there was video of him watching himself, a video that has been shown many times. what was unique was that his beard was completely gray. >> in the video that showed, it was great. -- it was gray. that is the kind of detail we are getting. >> you mentioned they said this marks the demise of al qaeda. what about plans for future attacks that they might have found? >> the most immediate plan of attack was the one that was announced prematurely, i think, by the u.s. government just this week that there was some plot to go after trains. that is raising a few suspicions, because it is not a typical mass casualty attack. that said, they are just at the beginning point of exploiting this new intelligence. they have created an interagency task force that will be going over all of the minute details, and clearly one of the highest priorities for this task force will be to find out if there are any immediate attack plans. this is standard procedure in any kind of big intelligence breakthrough. what is the most immediate threat to the united states, or other allied countries, from a future al qaeda attack? >> is that going to help them learn how to prevent future attacks as well? >> i think that this material will probably provide enough information, if it is clear enough, that they will be able to forestall some attacks, or at least there will be discussions of targets. i ask whether or not they had received any confirmation about concerns that al qaeda was seeking to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. the official said clearly this is one of the things that will be looking at very closely to try and determine. >> did they mention at all how the u.s. is going to deal with pakistan going forward? >> it is a very touchy subject, obviously. my sense is that the u.s. government is trying to maintain the half-a-loaf relationship they have with pakistan. there is a groundswell of congressional support that would say we should cut off the estimated $3 billion a year in aid to pakistan. so that is the question. the official kind of dance around a question and gave a qualified answer that from the material they had obtained, there was no evidence that the pakistani government was aware of bin laden. when asked could there be other elements in pakistan that supported bin laden, that was a little less clear. the official referred to the comments earlier this week of a senior administration official who said that clearly, it appeared that bin laden had to have some type of a support network in pakistan to be able to operate theire and not be detected. one of the big takeaways from the briefing, and this was reported in the washington times first this week, was that this compound and bin laden's kiedel was a command central, a central command headquarters for al qaeda. recently, u.s. officials had said that al qaeda had some help diversified and that central al qaeda appeared to be less important than many of these affiliate's in places like yemen and somalia, but this briefing made it clear and the information that they have recently recovered makes it very clear that osama bin laden was an active commander for terrorist activities from this compound. >> we appreciate the information. >> they do very much. >> we have some of the video of osama bin laden released by the pentagon on our website, c- span.org. >> this weekend, former utah governor and former ambassador to china jon huntsman delivers the commencement address at the university of south carolina. south carolina is the first southern state to hold a presidential primary. what's this sunday on c-span " "road to the white house." >> jon huntsman gave a commencement address today at the university of south carolina. it was his first public speech since resigning his ambassadorship late last month. former governor huntsman recently created a political action committee that will allow him to raise money as he weighs the decision on whether to run for the 2012 presidential republican nomination. this is about 20 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. i am glad some family members were here to hear that. the trustees, the faculty, to parents, do you students. i am flattered and honored to be here today. i assume it is because i know a little bit about the south. i have spent the last 28 years of my life with the cell. -- with the south. it will be pleased to know that i don't even need an interpreter now when i meet with my in-laws. i know my wife is going to kill me for saying this, but i lost complete faith in my father-in- law to be, a good southern gentleman, when i found out that at birth, he had been given the name charles floyd cooper, and chose to go by floyd. so last saturday at midnight, i lost my security clearance. when i transitioned out of being the united states ambassador to china. so maybe you think i can now tell you all a little bit about the highly sensitive secrets of foreign diplomacy. well, guess again. the real secret about diplomats is that we are trained to say something when there is nothing to say, and to say nothing when there is something to say. we are forever locked between a cliche and an indiscretion. so even though my immunity has been revoked, i thought i would err, of indiscretion today, and try to find a few honest words about choices ahead, and finding a successful path way in life, because tomorrow, you will start finding your own pathways. but today, your closing an incredibly important and expensive chapter in your life. so no matter what else i say today, i hope you remember this. congratulations, graduates, we are very, very proud of you. [applause] you see, life is not a straight and narrow route. life is full of turns, hills, alleyways, sometimes even cliffs. lots of speed bumps and potholes, some pathways are by design, and others are more random. some stick to the script. others like to improvise. everyone of you sitting here today could tell a different story about how you arrived here at today's commencement exercise, and for most of you, you are just beginning the first chapter of your life. so what do you want your book of life to look like? how do you want it to read? how many chapters will there be? will it be fiction, or will it be non-fiction? heroic or romantic? comedy or tragedy? starting the minute you wake up tomorrow, it is totally up to you. one thing i have learned is that your life will never be complete until you find your most deep-rooted passion, and you will never find your passion until you learn to follow your heart. the one thing that drives you and inspires you and motivate you. so promise me this. starting today, quit asking others what they think you should be. ask yourself, and follow your heart. it will never let you down. my initial passion in life was to be a rock-and-roll musician. in my late teens, you would not have recognized me. my hair was rod stewart shaggy. i would not wear anything but superspeed genes. i ended up leaving high school a bid short of graduation to play with a band called wizards. i thought it was my ticket to fame. we rolled in the ugly as green ford van you could imagine, with all but shares in the back. it was pretty awesome until those inconvenient intersections, curbs, and stop lights caused those chairs to move around just a little bit. seagulls were not exactly enforced in those days. -- seatbelts were not enforced in those days. wizard did not exactly make it, but i will never regret following my passion. sometimes we take america for granted. sometimes we forget that we have the freedom to pursue any passion, while many in this world do not. i recently visited a very humble apartment of a chinese woman. she is a petite, magnetic, and impoverished wife, mother, and lawyer, who chose the pathway of activism. she has committed her life to calling for justice and fairness in a system that lacks the basic human rights that we in america believe our fundamental. she has been repeatedly detained and tortured. so much so that i found her with her legs broken, her entire body immobilized, trapped in a disheveled, 1-room apartment, hardly even large enough to hold her wheelchair. on that cold winter day, her water, heat, and power had all been shut off. the only thing that worked every now and again was her internet connection on this old, hand me down laptop. so here was the battle, one physically broken woman with a passion and believed in her cause, up against a government with the most formidable security apparatus in the world, determined to keep her silence. so who won? just weeks ago, she was rounded up and once again forced into an unknown detention facility, charged with creating a public disturbance. this woman, unable to walk without assistance, was viewed as a public threat. she gives me strength. she follows her passion. to me, she wins. never take for granted your freedom to choose a heroin destiny. don't make -- to choose your own destiny. don't make the mistake of comparing your destiny to someone else's. everyone has different battles to fight and surroundings in which to cope. you alone have the ability to be your best friend or your worst enemy. embrace who you are, and make yourself unique. like all of us, i am a product of my place in history. my earliest memories for vietnam, civil rights, the beatles on the s. sullivan show, and the assassinations of national leaders. it seemed to me like a time of great change, but it is not really that different from today. you see, your generation will have your owned unique set of circumstances that make you feel that your future has somehow been derailed. wars, economic recession, social upheaval, revolutions around the globe, and yet in each case, we recover, we learn lessons, and become ever more resilient. i know there are many in china who think their time has come, that america's best days are over, and there are probably some in this country who have lost confidence and think that china is the next best thing. but these people are not seeing things from my earlier vantage point of 10,000 miles away. the real test of a nation is not how well it does when times are good, but how well it does when times are tough. the way i saw it from overseas, the way i saw it from overseas,

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Montana ,United States ,Louisiana ,Alabama ,Vancouver ,British Columbia ,Canada ,China ,California ,Fort Hood ,Texas ,New Mexico ,Quebec ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,Mexico ,Arizona ,India ,South Carolina ,Massachusetts ,Indianapolis ,Indiana ,New York ,North Carolina ,Afghanistan ,Kentucky ,Illinois ,Tuscaloosa ,Virginia ,Toronto ,Ontario ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Pakistan ,Maine ,Nebraska ,Phoenix ,Springdale ,Newfoundland ,Arabian Sea ,India General ,Maryland ,Somalia ,Ohio ,Dallas ,Yemen ,France ,Utah ,Americans ,America ,Canadian ,Chinese ,Mexican ,Pakistani ,Afghan ,Canadians ,French ,American ,James Zogby ,Roe V Wade ,Jon Huntsman ,Scott Brown ,Joe Biden ,Rhode V Wade ,Charles Floyd Cooper ,George Bush ,Ann Tsa ,Jack Layton ,Carolyn Bennett ,Ben Bernanke ,Bush V Gore ,Stephen Breyer ,Donald Detweiler ,Ayman Al Zawahri ,Peggy Nash ,Jack Clayton ,Jason Kenney ,December Gao ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Al Qaeda ,Robert Mahler ,Steven Harper ,James Madison ,Daniel Larsen ,