that? guest: not so much indiana and ohio, not so much about the primaries today but both parties focused very closely on what's going to happen in november, especially democrats in north carolina are optimistic that they can -- that they can win this seat. the republican incumbent, richard burr, has not polled strongly. they have three candidates competing in the democratic -- well, they actually have six but there are major can indicates competing for the democratic nomination. it may go to a runoff. . nto a runoff. democrats are very hopeful that barack obama was able to carry in two dozen aides and one was able to defeat elizabeth dole by a decisive margin, they believe that richard can be extremely vulnerable. the difference is the turn of the took place is unlikely to be matched this year. host: the house seats in that

state, north carolina? caller: we are following a couple of them. a blue dog could face a tough renomination bell. -- battle. larry from the charlotte area voted against the health care reform bill. it did not sit well with liberals in his district. they did not get a strong challenger to him in the primary. but some are talking about running an independent candidate against him this fall. republicans view the big -- the eighth district as a big opportunity. host: if they can hold onto the states in north carolina, what does that mean for 2012? >> that is a very good question. it is really difficult to read with any reliability as to what

they mean. looking back to 2008, we saw how strong democrats were. their worst loss of -- there were were a lot of voters that turned out. they had a competitive primaries in ohio, north carolina and indiana. barack obama competed with hillary clinton. we saw a couple of years later how much enthusiasm matters and how little enthusiasm and the democrats have. a and china to make too many predictions about 2012. i am really -- i do not want to make to make predictions about 2012. i do not have a good idea about this year. republicans have unified behind rob portman. on the democratic side, a rise between the the tenet gov. who has been endorsed by the

governor and secretary of state jennifer. the recent poll yesterday showed that lee is ahead by 20 points and there is about 35% undecided. he should win this race. he should have had this lot of the long time ago. he has statewide name recognition. he looked like a much stronger candidate. peebles in washington are disappointed that he is still trying to fend off -- people in must attend a disappointed that he is still trying to fend off this race. i think he needs to, of this racece with [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> become live fee brookings washington d.c. still waiting for the homeland security secretary and she will be joined by the mexican interior secretary here at brookings to talk about u.s.-mexico security situation. they will have remarks and participate on law enforcement activities and commerce and travel. and we'll have it live for you here on c-span. meanwhile, the house is back later at 6:30 eastern time to vote on several bills debated. you can watch that live here on c-span as well. the senate is in session. the senate continuing work on a financial regulations bill. live coverage on the u.s. senate as always on our companion network c-span 2. while we wait for the event to get started at brookings institution, more from today's "washington journal." we heard from the commodities

trading commission about credit agencies and their role in the financial crisis and possible new regulations in the senate legislation. takes up the financial regulation bill. we will talk about that next. first an update on politics. it is primary day in three states. caller ac++o++'+++3c >> we will now take you to that "washington journal" portion when we learned about credit agencies and their role in the financial crisis. host: lindsay jones is the editor at "public affairs" c-span's new book quote the supreme court."

why did public affairs think this would make a good book? they're doing, that they're excited by, and they had done the interviews with the justices over >> all the justices had sat down for an interview at with one time, and they realized they had never been collected in one place before in writing, and so it seemed like a natural option for a book, so we started working on the book right after the series aired in october of last year. host: and the book goes on sale today. you can find it at book star stores starting today. you were integral in organizing this book. how did you decide and how is it

organized? guest: well, we put the justices' interviews first, and that was fairly easy decision in order of seniority with chief justice roberts in the beginning, and then the second portion of the book features the interviews that c-span did with supreme court experts, so you have two journalists, a historian, and the clerk of the supreme court, and those are very interesting interviews as well, in that they were quite candid and offered a lot of insight into sort of the inside workings of the court, so i had a lot of fun reading those, and then the third part of the book is sort of supplement ry material, and susan swain who worked on the series and i, just talked about what leaders would want, and so you have short biographies of the justices and a poll that the c-span did on

the public's knowledge of the supreme court, which was not a visible part of our government, and that was the reason behind doing the series in the first place. host: the third party you are talking about, is that the appendix? >> yes. host: that's important why? guest: well i think one of the things about this book is that it appeals to people that have a lot of knowledge about the supreme court. you know, a recent reviewer was just commenting that you can see from reading the interviews that it's the conservative members of the court that are interested in hearing more cases in a year. that's a fairly inside baseball thing that you wouldn't necessarily know if you weren't reading closely, but at the same time we wanted it to be accessible to people who knew very little about the court and just wanted to know, you know,

where the justices come from, where they went to law school, you know. there is lists of the number of cases that have been heard since 1980, and you can see that it's dropped by -- it used to be about 150 a year and now they're doing about 75, 80 a year, so it just adds some texture to what you're reading in the interviews. host: what were some things that you learned by editing and reading this book? guest: one of the things i learned is that being a supreme court justice is much more of a solitary endeavor than i had imagined. what the book offers is sort of a look at a lot of the daily routines an rituals of the court and what goes on when they're not in oral argument or sitting together at conference, and most of the justices are their world is with their clerks and some of

them work from home in the morning and come in in the afternoon. justice stevens often works in florida, and there is a sunny little an anecdote in the book about sensing his colleagues' envy when he opens a brief and sand falls out of it on the bench but it really is in some ways, one of the justices said this, more like an academic life than i had realized. host: what about the photos that are in this book? there are colored photos, there are black and white photos and there is also screen graphs from the documentary we did. why include all of those? guest: well, we wanted the book to really complement the documentary and give readers the same feel as the documentary of entering an institution that is, you know, relatively closed off to the public. it's obviously a little bit controversial right now that they're closing the front doors. you can still go inside, but there are, you know, c-span went

to places that the public never sees, the roving room, back into the justices' chambers. there is pictures of most of the justices in their chambers. you can see justice ginsberg holding up her robe, and it just gave us the same sort of intimacy that the c-span producers had when they were walking around the court. host: as i said this is in bookstores starting today. people can go out an buy it, but is it also available digitally? guest: yes, it should be. it should be available everywhere that books are sold. today is the sale date and readers can get it on-line. if it's not in your local bookstore, it probably will be soon. you can always get it on-line and digital versionons should be [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we will take you live to the brookings institution when homeland security secretary and intersecretary of mexico. more from today's "washington journal." host: michael green berger, university of maryland law school professor, but used to serve at the commodities division here to talk about credit rating agencies. these credit rating agencies and the role that they played in wall street in the financial meltdown that we saw. what is a credit rating agency? s

valuations of the quality of investments, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, sovereign debt. they raided them like a teacher would rate a student with grades. the highest grade, aaa. that is considered a solid investment. the ratings go down the letters. three major agencies use slightly different lettering. the investment is starting respective when you get to the los b's. -- low b's. if you want to demonstrate your a financial institution that has adequate capital to keep

functioning in a bad financial situation, you are required to hold triple a rating bonds. there is a required portfolio on certain triple-a-rated bonds. they play an important role in the financial system. they are graders of the quality of investors -- investments. the credit bridgett -- the credit rating agencies evaluate the quality of sub-prime investments. that was a problem in the sub- prime crisis. you are making a loan to someone whose creditworthiness is questionable. these loans got repackaged into mortgage-backed securities. host: those were a bunch of these sub-prime mortgages into one package. guest: exactly. then they got collateralized debt obligations.

they're rated at different levels. the problem is the credit rating agencies were brought in by the bank we're trying to sell these prime investments. they use the exact same rating system for these investments that they use for highly state bonds. they made a decision that the state this of these investments would get a triple a rating. as it moved from the loan to the mortgage-backed security, people lost track of the real financial transaction here, which was the loan was made it to somebody who did not have the credits that was normally available when you make a loan. many of these were fraudulently induce. either the people or the mortgage broker -- a bus driver was written down to have a

$5,000 income. the credit rating agencies said -- $400,000 income. the credit rating agencies were responsible for some that got approved for loans that did not have the credit. they're looking at it credit 8 ratings that were supposed to be safe. host: did they give a rating just on the loan? guest: the agency is supposed to go back to the original transaction, analyze it. what angered a lot of people is that they should not have used aaa ratings, which of the

listeners know indicates a very safe investment. the agency said, you do not understand. this was triple a for its sub- prime mortgage or a mortgage may to somebody who may not be able to pay it back. there was a lot of confusion in the industry. it is complicated that the people who created these collateralized debt obligations were paying the credit rating agencies for their evaluation. that is how it has been done for many years. the agencies are paid by people to issue bonds. in this scenario, there was a hearing last week. the chairman made it clear that there were all sorts of conflicts. the banks were in negotiations over the payment for the ratings

at the same time the ratings were done. there were conflicts of interest. people did not know the algorithms that for used were way out of date and too simplistic for determining the likelihood of these investments would pay off. less week, senator levin demonstrated that sometime in 2005, the three major credit ratings did not do this in a way that showed the investment public what these investments were worth. it gave the impression that they were much safer than they were. there were working at better signals. it took them until 2006 to get them in place. they only apply to them going forward and left the old investments under the prior standard. sometime in 2007, the credit

rating agencies are madly readjusting and saying what we told u.s. triple a, is not investment rating. investors found out that what was gold-plated was junk status. it is sent a shot into the system that caused the crisis itself host: you were referring to the goldman executives -- guest: it was before goldman. they brought in moody's and the three major ones. there were others that are more prominently known. he cross-examined the credit rating agency executives and said, what is going on? recent terrible signals into the economy. many bought these thinking they were buying gold plated investments. it was nothing more than junk.

in 2007, 91% of these sub-prime investments dropped to junk status. almost overnight. host: on the goldman hearing that followed this, people heard about the credit rating agencies and the role they played with goldman and now this suit been filed against the firm. what is happening there? guest: there were a couple of competing theories that led to the meltdown. one is, it does not matter how much a person who gets a mortgage gets paid. the appreciating value of the house will skyrocket. that will form something where these mortgages will be paid off. there was no risk. the credit rating agencies were

initially part of that. there was no risk. even if you cannot afford your home, it would appreciate before you knew what would happen and you could extract that appreciating value to pay the mortgages. there was a competing be represented by this investor john paulson who plays an active role in the sec against coleman where he made the rational decision, this is -- against goldman for he made to the rational decision saying this is a guess people who do not have good credit and pay their mortgages. i bet they will not pay their mortgages. he went through these collateralized debt obligations and picked out the weakest by virtue of the credit rating agencies. he looked for the junk bond status. he assembled a bunch of them. he said, even though we did not own them, and that these investments will fail. it is like trying to find insurance on somebody else's

house that is about to be lit on fire. you cannot do that in the insurance industry. in is how highly -- he was able to say, i want to ensure we can invest in this. they had to find somebody to do the insurance. the claim is goldman defrauded a very small insurance company into taking the opposite side of that bet. we will insure these houses about to go up in smoke. it pasted of its obligation to the royal bank of scotland. when paulson won his bet and these sub-prime mortgages defaulted, the ones he picked up that were read -- week, there is no capital to pay off paulson. that explains the meltdown. the american taxpayer has been

the lender of last resort to people who were betting that things would fail even though they did not own them. the people that took the bet and the most prominent, aig did not have the capital to pay them off so we the taxpayer did. host: mark democratic line, philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: i was watching cnbc regarding the financial muscle bump. they had an interview with someone from the rating services. he was coming up with a bond rating. he said i cannot come up with this unable to do it. he had been in the business for ages. some say he cannot generate revenue for the ratings on.

the credit agencies committed fraud. i am not an attorney but an accountant. if it was not criminal fraud, it was civil fraud. either they get hit with criminal fraud and wire these credit agencies not going to jail? guest: you ask some very good questions. first, senator ben cardin has introduced legislation trying to be added to the senate financial reform package that will allow whistle-blowers within these companies to call out the credit agencies -- rating agencies and not be in a position to be fired. there were tons of emails within the company's employees said,

this is not working. we are not doing the right thing. many people got fired and quit because they understood this was where people who were selling the city knows -- ceos were paying for their grades like a student paying their professor for their grades. some have been very aggressive with the way these agencies were done. the pending senate legislation has a provision that allows people who have been defrauded to rosalyn negligence of these companies to sue these companies for damages. that is one measure that will be a controlling factor to present

a common sense evaluations on these transactions. host: will these proposals be part of the financial regulation bills and the senate? guest: one part is in the legislation right now. it is considered by the senate. many think a standard could have been mapped in this environment. the house has a similar provision. senator carden is going to offer an amendment that will protect people so they do not get fired that the this is something very dangerous to the economy. we talk about the great recession, the milk down, the bailout, the credit rating agencies must take the blame for this. host: voting starts today on amendments.

they expect this to go a couple of weeks. what else in this bill is related to the credit rating agencies? guest: coleman dealt with some of these. there were various evaluations the agencies made. paulson did his own investigation and bet against them. finding someone to take the opposite end of the debt. those transactions have to be conducted on a formal transparent exchange with all of this information going to regulators. they have the ability to say, what is this all about? this has nothing to do with the real economy. paulson has not been accused of doing anything wrong. amos betting that people would get kicked out of their houses. he wanted to find people to say their mortgages would be fine.

there is a provision that says if this is a gaming transaction, go to las vegas where it is regulated. the regulators have a right to say this has no real bind to the economy. it is a threat, because the taxpayers are the bank of -- banker of last resort to the casinos that did not have enough money to pay off their bets. caller: this is going to boil down to regulatory positions. right off the top of my head, i will throw out some people who were driven out of government. why did you leave your government position? anot [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> we take you now to the brookings institution with homeland security secretary and mexico interior secretary are going to talk about u.s.-mexico security. >> as we meet today, the debate over immigration has been re-ignited in our country. that debate raises important questions about how we control our borders and beyond, to how we define ourselves as a nation. in events around the country this week, secretary napt has been busy dealing with the oil spill in new mexico and the attempted bombing in times square as well as the response to the new immigration law in her former home state of arizona. to say that we face increasingly complex challenges on the southwest border is certainly an understatement. shortly after assuming office, the secretary asked for a review of d.h.s.'s southwest border enforcement efforts and was

acquainted with the issues as previously having served as the u.s. attorney for arizona, arizona attorney general and more recently, as governor of that state. from that review, she led the administration's new strategy, southwest border initiative. a little more than a year old, the strategy emphasizes three aspects of border security, personnel, technology and infrastructure. the goals of this strategy are to counteract illegal smuggling of goods, people, drugs, weapons and currency while at the same time supporting these efforts with more effective technology and infrastructure. the challenges have taken center stage. but we must also recognize there are many opportunities on the southwest border, especially if we recognize them as they operate in the 21st century interglobal world. our close relationship with mexico with cross-border commerce taking place every day and long history of migration

means that trade, security and immigration are important to both countries. the secretary and mexico's secretary have a collaboration around law enforcement and focused their efforts on dismantling drug cartels and honing in on transnational and homeland security threats. he was a lawyer and served as an adviser to the president. the two secretaries are here today to speak about their continued coordinated efforts and the strengthening partnership that united states and mexico share. they will offer brief remarks which will be followed by questions from the audience and questions that were submitted in advance online from several sites in the u.s. and mexico. i'll turn it over to my brookings colleague and

"washington post" columnist who writes on a range of issues. he'll moderate the session, which is also being web cast. >> thank you very much, audrey. all of you know that the secretary was not late because she was at lunch. she had a meeting at the white house on some important matters. i don't know why she would want the job she has. a friend described it as the head of department of plague, violence and political posture and add any other things that came to mind and i just want to say for those of you who don't know the interior secretary, i asked my assistant to help me out and came in with a stack of papers and looked at me and said this is one tough guy. and the quote she pointed out to me, which i will read to you, he

said the federal government does not ever dialogue, does not negotiate, does not reach deals with any criminal organization. there is no other alternative for their members but to submit to the law. so that gives you a little bit of a sense of where he's coming from. i turn first our homeland security secretary and then to the interior minister and then i will have a few questions. we do have watch parties going on for this event at the university of texas at brownsville, university of texas at el paso, arizona state, the american chamber of commerce in mexico city and the regional chamber of commerce. welcome, secretary. >> thank you, e.j. and again my apollings for being late but i'm glad i'm here and i'm glad i'm here with my good friend.

over the last years we have formed a strong working partnership, recognizing that the goal we seek, which is to have a safe and secure border region, a border area that's really defined by the needs of the 21st century. and in addition, our joint interests in breaking up the drug cartels in mexico, the drug cartels which are violent within mexico, but also have fingertips which reach well into every community in the united states. and so only by working together are we really going to achieve those two goals, security and 21st century border. let me, if i might, begin with the security issue. the united states has and will continue to fund training and

other programs through the initiative. we will continue to work with the calderon administration on operational partnerships. that makes sense and fit into an overall strategy aimed at security, security within mexico, security in the border region. we have expanded law enforcement cooperation beyond anything i have ever seen before. and i have been working this border now -- i became the u.s. attorney in 1993. so and i have lived in a border state. i grew up in new mexico and after law school, i moved to arizona. so i can say that this border region is vital. it is something that deserves our mutual attention at all times. we have entered into historic agreements on sharing information, sharing

cartel-related information and intelligence, sharing felony history information about those who are being repay try ated to mexico. that was not done before and establishing a cross-board law enforcement communications network that allows intel to be shared on a real-time basis. we engaged in an operation going after the bus companies that transport illegal immigrants and others between the border and into the interior of the united states and we were able to repat riate individuals back to mexico. we are working on the board -- border region as an entity. mexico is one of our largest trading partners.

22 states have mexico as either number one or two in terms of trade. and that equates to jobs and it's an area that we recognize. port management, every delay at a port is cost and that affects competitiveness. we have established a framework by a management committee. what does that mean? what it means that at these big land ports across the southwest border, there will be joint management so that we're working goods, commerce and people coming up from the south and also going north, making sure things go as smoothly as possible. we are harmonizing our customs clearance processes and harmonizing some of the trade documents all of which add costs and delay to our huge operational ports.

in both of these areas, security and really creating a 21st century border with trade, commerce, tourism, families who have members on both sides of the border, can see their family members, go back and forth easily and those are joint goals that we share. and again, it's the work with mexico and the cooperation and coordination with mexico, that is an ingredient and strength that is really new and energized element of this partnership. >> thank you very much. it's an honor for me to appear before you at this institute which has been known for the seriousness of the investigation and projection of the thinking -- best of the thinking in

american society. well, we have to recognize one thing. i think we have let the times in which we thought that secure border was a demand from the u.s. government and not the demand of the mexican government. security is needed for both governments on both sides of the border. we are suffering the defects in which armed controls are fitting in the violent process and we believe with joint cooperation, finding out the common ground of our responsibility in order to avoid the criminal practices that damage both of our nations in which is the best way to approach a common responsibility. i have to say i'm younger than janet. we have a level of cooperation in which both sides maturely recognize the need for

cooperation and the need to enforce our responsibilities on both sides of the border in help and reach a common goal, that is a secure border that fa sill traits trade and legal immigration and at the same time is able to fight the dynamics of violence and crime that are on both sides of the border. we believe in this endeavor, we are partners. we believe on the side of nationality, there's human rights issues that we have to preserve and defend because we are both democratic nations that believe in such values as universal values that should be kept and preserved. and that we believe as democratic countries that the rule of law, the basic freedoms and rights are guaranteed. so we're working.

in that, we are involving our agencies in a margin of cooperation, which is new for both our countries and this is a positive experience by which we may achieve common goals and that the only and best way which we'll obtain a secure border for both countries, by which we can build on progress for both nations. >> thank you very much. in addition, all the good people we have in this room, we have a whole lot of elephants in this room and there are a couple of questions i would like to ask in the beginning to deal with the elephants in the room. you just came back from an important meeting at the white house. you said it took us 53 hours to apprehend the man who allegedly drove that truck in times square. you said you hoped it was a one

off. can you tell us what transpired today because i know my friends in the media care a lot about that. >> well, obviously, this was the work of a lot of good law enforcement, a lot of good law enforcement by the new york police department, f.b.i., but in particular, customs and border protection who were able to ascertain by a variety of methods that i'm not going to detail, but shahzad, the suspect, was actually boarded a plane at j.f.k. and able to get the plane back at the gate and get him unboarded and under arrest. and that began then the criminal process. when i said on sunday that this was a one off, that was in the

context of did we know and have specific evidence of other plots that were under way or currently under way. and the answer is no, we didn't have any evidence that he was other than operating by himself. but, e.j., we all recognize that we live in an environment where the threats against the united states and our way of life are ever present and ever changing. so we had a good session at the white house and with others, not just about this, but i've also got homeland security presidential directive 5 and the secretary of homeland security, that would be me, is the overall federal official for the oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

of course the commandant of the coast guard, that had allen reports to me and then to the president. so lots of issues going on today. >> you don't get to cut ribbons. >> not anymore. >> the other elephant in the room is the arizona law. and i wanted to ask what you make of the amendments, the law in various forms, you vetoed this when you were governor. what effect do you think it will have and what effect will it have in changing the national immigration debate and how has this law been viewed in mexico? >> we have great concerns about 10770 law in arizona. we -- 1070 law in arizona. it induces racial profiling and disrupts the way legal immigrants live in arizona. and we think that some issues

about human rights that are so caring for american society will be raised in relation with the law. we respect that and understand that this is a national issue that has to be resolved and which we are very concerned because of our emotional links that may suffer with the excesses of this law. we have recognized that president obama and the homeland security secretary and though i understand that by the view, this will take proper good effort to enforce other violent crimes. it will make us face the application of the law. concerns about tolerance and other values that are very careful to our democratic

society. so yes, we don't like this law. we believe it affects mexican nationals, even those that may reside legally in arizona. and we believe it may have much more problems than solutions. we believe and this is very important that the migration issue should be solved differently. we understand this is a sovereign decision by the u.s. and we respect that, but we want to make the case that mexican immigration, most of it has been good and tried to be constructive and productive and is forming part of the american society in a very important way. and we believe we should find a way in which legality broadens

the avenues for migration with two countries who have a long history together and that may complement rather well in which the good work of a number of people may benefit. we believe it is a difficult issue, but trust and confidence has worked much better for both of our countries than mistrust and intolerance within our societies. i really believe that. i worry -- i understand. i'm a lawyer. so i understand that the procedures within -- and i'm not just a lawyer but great admirer of the process of lawyering in the united states. so i'm curiously watching legal procedures in order to see what's going to happen with this

law within the scope of the american justice system. >> have you satisfied his curiosity? >> obviously, the justice department is taking a look at it and quite frankly, i was a little occupied over the weekend and was not exactly following the language changes that were made by the arizona legislature. it is true when i was governor vetoed similar laws and i did that for a number of reasons, one not mentioned by my friend is that i think it's bad for law enforcement. i think it doesn't allow law enforcement to set the right priorities depending on what are local needs within different areas of the state. and i don't think that's good. that's one of the reasons the association of chiefs of police would come and see me when those laws passed and talk to me about

that. that's one of the reasons that the sheriff of pima, which is tucson, 100 miles north of the border and he has been the sheriff there forever has basically said it's not a good law, not a good law for him or law enforcement. that being said, let me add one point, however and that is this, i understand the frustration of the people of arizona. they remain -- it remains one of the gateway states into the country for narcotics and contraband and illegal immigration. and we have put many resources into arizona over the last 15 months, more pen, more technology, more infrastructure, more money for local law enforcement like sheer i've department and we need to look at what else needs to be done because the people of arizona

deserve a border that is safe and secure. it is as safe and secure as it's ever been, but it can be more safe and more secure and that's what we are working on. >> i want to ask the interior secretary, one of the causes of anxiety on this side is the violence going on in mexico which you dedicated going after the drug gangs and you noted a week ago that the violence that has largely been among the gangs themselves have turned on the public authorities down there. what can the united states do to help stop this violence? and in particular, how big a problem is easy access to guns in the u.s. getting over to the mexican border to arm the gangs? how big of a problem is that? >> it's an important part of the problem. we need to recognize the government which has put much

more agents in trying to stop this. we are working on some programs, national programs that helps us give information on arms that is fed to the intelligence assistance in the u.s. so they can trace and find the roots. it becomes illegal when it is organized to export the weapons to a country in which their position is not legal. that's when the activity becomes legal in the u.s. we understand that. my government has been working a great deal with the department of justice and homeland security department to find a much better ground for intelligence. we -- these things take time. we are building important efforts in order to achieve important results, in order to

prevent this, it's hurting us. though we believe that violence has been overexposed in mexico, hiding other parts of our nation as a productive country in which we are constantly involved in legal commerce and legal activities which are supported by the majority in mexico. we understand that there is violence. we are involved in a very important institutional reconstruction and rebuilding in mexico. we are discussing our political reform. we are discussing how to enhance and fortify our public security situation at the local level. we are discussing constitutional reform in order to redistribute competence by the local and municipal authorities in order

to be more efficient and invest in our public resources in a much better way. and one of the most important things that has to be looked at here is yes, we are confronted in a much more open fashion than before. they recognize that mexican authorities are in crushing their activities. they are committed to stopping them and to stop their criminal organizations. and that bigger is part of what represents the new mexico we are building in which their respect for law is national demand. and that even, and i can say,

may not only be attributed to president calleder own -- calderon's administration, but the three political parties in the process of making legal reforms that help the authorities to be more efficient and in the allocation of public resources in order to strengthen our public security institutions. and one thing that has been very important for us in this process is having the assistance of the u.s. authorities and the initiative in which our fortitudes are getting stronger by the cooperation of a nation that has better instruments in terms of public safety within a democratic context. and so the assistance we receive is important and the assistance we're giving the american authorities for them to detect

the risk factors that reside within the u.s. territory. >> i asked the secretary about this before you came here and 80% of weapons are coming from the u.s. into mexico. most of the assault weapons. what can we do to stop this? re-institute the assault weapons ban? how can we stop exporting the guns that help keep the violence going? >> i think, e.j., there is probably not much appetite in congress for re-instituting the assault weapons ban. so what we have really looked at is what can be done on the ground to slow or impede arms trafficking. so about a year ago, we began a section of southbound traffic, inspecting all trains, putting k-9 teams down at the border who

are trained to sniff guns as well as bulk cash. and they have had some very, very significant seizures in that regard. so just by the pure application of law enforcement on target, we have been able to, i think, impede some of the flow of weapons to the south. but it's a very simple traffic. it's money and guns south and drugs north. and and fer nan doe is working -- fernando is working on the drugs going north and the cartels that are exporting the drugs and we are looking at the illegal export of the guns and the bulk cash to the south. and that is a traffic that has gone on for many years. i actually think we are

beginning to show some real signs of progress and we just need to keep at it and need to be keeping a look at other things to deal with that north-south traffic, because the legal, the legal trade, traffic, it's huge and a huge opportunity for us. >> i'm glad you said that because i wanted to include commerce -- two questions tr the two chambers of commerce, one from the san diego regional chamber of commerce, how could business people on both sides of the border involved in legitimate trade between our two countries. and then from the chamber of commerce in mexico is facilitating trade a priority for homeland security and what does the mexican government have planned in this regard?

and they are very specific down there, the chamber in mexico. please mention a few concrete steps that have been taken. go ahead. >> we are conducting inspections as never before. in the beginning, i understand that they may implement some -- to legal commerce. we will be getting more efficient as we get involved. we are acquiring technology that can make the process much faster. but it is important to understand why we're doing so. and this is to clearly detect and to illustrate the importance of legal commerce within both our countries and that the best way to keep it in that way is being more efficient in order to prevent, detect and fight what's

illegal in both our countries. we believe that a safe border is a border that makes and is efficient for legal commerce, but at the same time, is efficient in order to prevent the commission of crimes on both sides of the border. and i know in the way we are cooperating, this is being accomplished in an important way. and you have to understand, for us, evidently, we have committed to fight drug cartels in mexico, but the problem isn't just drug cartels, but the damaging effect they have on the public security issue in mexico. they changed the way they operate. they are not just committing to put drugs in the u.s. market. at the same time, they were paid by their providers with drugs and not with cash. they started to act on the local

markets and to sell to the local markets and to become involved in other illegal activities. so we are very committed to make our borders safe for both countries. we are very committed in order to rebuild our institutions and bring back public safety and prevent the gangs from damaging the mexican people. this is not just with will and cooperation, but for us, it's a very important issue to strengthen security within our democratic context. and in our political transition we did not look -- to that issue until recently with the seriousness and commitment in which this government has and that has brought onto the mexican political system a real

will to establish the rule of law in the country and that will surely happen when we can bring violence down and we will. .

. which you understand the recovery act funds is being greatly expanded as are other ports along the southwest borders. the greater use of technology to

move goods and commerce through, i mentioned work to try to standardize forums or to do more by -- without paper so that things move more smoothly, more easily back and forth between the two countries. the efforts to put more technology at the portlands that will -- ports that will move the traffic more quickly. it's a whole tool box of things that we're really focused on for this border concept. one point was made and i don't want it to be overlooked which is to say that in terms of, you know, kind of a new addition to all of the things that have been going on between the united states and mexico in terms of cooperation has been the pilot project as it were for mexico to install its own customs and border patrol on that side of the border, to catch things

moving south. so that just because you get through the port of entry in texas or california wherever doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be effective law enforcement on the other side. >> i'm going to just ask a couple more before i go to the audience. do we have he a mike going around the room? i saw a reporter up front. let me ask one question to each of you before i turn the audience, i may come back in. there's a very interesting question, i think it interests a lot of americans, to the minister from the university of texas at el paso, the question is, what actions is s mexico taking could contain the undocumented movement of migrants to the u.s. what economic actions, what educational actions, what social actions? again the question continues, after four years of the administration, how do you measure your success on each of these conventions?

>> we are acting in the border with a much more global vision, much more comprehensive approach to the public security issues. especially to juarez, we are taking a very important program now in which we want to get the community to be involved in the reconstruction and rebuilding of their own institutions. we believe that the problem of public safety in juarez is different than in other kinds of the countries. it's your political situation and the way the immigration works on -- the population demand a different approach and we are trying to fight the marketing by which criminal organizations obtain their recruit members.

we are reenforcing public education there, university education, and we are reinforcing economic activities and public spaces and the rebuilding of community -- policing and community that juarez demands. juarez presents itself very different model. basically we are sure that not all the part of the border have the violence that juarez has presented. we believe all parts of the border presents successful cases of public enforcement and legal enforcement. and in which social things are working differently. we are committed to help the people from juarez to rebuild their own institutions, to rebuild their own public safety

through community activities and we are having very important cooperation with the u.s. agencies in order to see, understand and react to the dynamic of criminal activity in both sides of the border and which were linked to the mexican -- we have been work on investigations to punish those responsible. we believe that juarez is waiting for a different approach, that in order to place it, because we believe that there are different conditions there. and, well, we believe that, let me tell you, the increasing violence at this moment shows that, first, public institutions are not -- public security

institutions are not -- or corrupt officials have not -- [inaudible] protecting illegal activities, that the separation between public safety institutions and criminal activities much more clearer now than ever and it's important for the government rebuilding process and the commitment of public safety officials to prevent an act against crime is much clearer now and criminal organizations are facing and acknowledging this fact so that's why confrontation of these criminal activities against public officials is increasing. it's a fact, a sad sign of institutional devotion that's happening in mexico. i think it should have happened long ago but it's happening now because now is when the mexican people decided to commit to this battle and we are committed to

this battle. >> thank you. before i turn to the audience, i just had to ask you about my colleague's column in "the post" this morning. she wrote that, those who say we just need to secure the border down to arizona, take a look or just read up on what is happening on the border. he quotes the sheriff saying the border has never been so secure, the system police chief saying that there hasn't been a spillover of violence from mexico into the united states, undocumented the border crossings from undocumented immigrants have declined sharply over the last decade. sadly some of that's because of economic downturn. could you talk about, you know, what your sense is of how secure the border is now and to what extent is there more to be done? how much more can be done? >> i can say he was right in the sense that it's more secure now than it ever has been. every congressional benchmark

that has been set, you know, a number of border patrol agents, miles of fence and the like have all been deployed. and so there is that. i think i quoted the sheriff as well, like i said, he's been the sheriff there for about 30 some odd years. nonetheless here are -- just to give you a sense of numbers, there is some more work to be done. and we've had the issue, the murders in juarez recently, we also had the tragic murder of a ramplinger in southern arizona by someone who appears to have crossed the border and then gone back. so, there's always more to be done and there's always new speaking to be done when you're talking about border, border security. but in terms of what's on the

ground, what's been done, the commitment, the absolute laser-like focus on that border from san diego across to brownsville, i think what we are saying here is that on both sides there's never been so much focus as there is today. >> thank you. where's my "the new york times" colleague? i saw her -- there you are. here's the mike. >> hello, madam secretary, nice to see you, mr. secretary. thanks for doing this. we know how busy you are. i wanted to ask you about the whole eng lada. -- enchilada. the comprehensive immigration reform. the president has said that he wants it. the timeline for delivering it seems to keep slipping. i wonder if you think that it's realistic that such a policy is realistic when you have arizona passing restrictive laws and you have polling shows that 51% of

americans believe they probably did the right thing. if you do think it's realistic, how and when? thank you. >> yeah, i saw that and we can debate polls. but i've also seen other polls and these polls have been consistent over years and those polls are -- 2: 1 margins that americans appreciate and understand the need for comprehensive immigration reform. they understand that includes enforcement and we do need to update and expand some of the enforcement tools that we have. that it includes some measure of temporary worker flow back and forth and that needs to be adjusted as economic circumstances warrant. and they understand that we are not going to support those who are already here illegally but that instead what ought to be done is that they get right with

the law, that they come out of the shadows, they register, they pay a fine or a surcharge on their taxes that they provide their biometrics so their criminal histories can be run. and i've seen poll after poll. i used to take some of those polls myself when i was running for elective office in arizona. and focus groups and they are consistent across states and across time. so, that, by the way, what i just outlined, is basically the framework for immigration reform. and it's the framework that was suggested by senators schumer and graham, who have been working on what such a state would like like in -- look like in legislative language and we have been working with -- [inaudible] and their staffs to provide such language and the president has said he would support a bill that included or was designed

along the lines of that framework. so you have two key bipartisan leaders of the senate who have indicated this is what the framework looks like. you have the president of the united states saying, i agree with that framework. and you have polling that's been done over years of the american people that basically says, yeah, that's what we appreciate, that would give us a good, strong, fair immigration system and now we want to work and establish that and have confidence moving forward that we're not going to have in 20 years another 10 million or 12 million in the country illegally. so, what is missing in that recipe? what's missing in that recipe is basically bipartisan support to move immigration reform because as the president recognizes, as

senator schumer and graham have recognized, as anyone who lives in this town and works with the hill recognizes, such a bill will not pass without bipartisan support. and that doesn't exist right now. so, how will that be managed? what will happen? i do not know. i do not know whether there will be an attempt to go ahead and move it before the midterm or shortly therefore. what i do know is -- thereforeafter. what i do know is that the president intends to keep moving this issue. what i do know is that the president doesn't give up easily. i think we saw that with health care. which took a lot longer than anyone predicted at the outset but nonetheless got done. so, the president's behind it, i think ultimately we will get

there. >> can i get a mike up front here to darl west? >> thank you. how can we have informed debate in the united states on immigration? because each of you have pointed out that we've made great progress on border security, the number of immigrant flows from mexico to the united states actually are down, when you compare this over the last 20 years, in terms of the polling data there is support for a pathway to legalization under the right circumstances, with the various conditions you just noted being attached to it. but yet at the same time immigration is such an emotional issue for many americans, the media don't help us too much, the media sometimes inflame the passions on this issue. how can we -- not e.j. but some other people, how can we elevate the level of civic discourse on this so we can have a debate on the fact of immigration as

opposed to the emotions surrounding it? >> i wish i had a better answer because it is an important issue. it is an important part of our sovereignty, who is a allowed in the country, who is allowed to become a citizen? every country has the right to enforce its own immigration laws. mexico enforces its immigration law. so, it shouldn't be a debate about commitment to enforcement. i mean, there is a commitment to enforcement. what we would like to have discussed more is how do you do that in the current circumstances and really thinking about what the integration system needs to be, not just for this year but for the decaded coming up and how do you do that and at the same time create the 21st century border? we've been talking about which is safe and secure for people who live in those border areas, but also facilitates the

movement of trade and commerce. i think, you know, the most i can suggest is to keep harping on the facts. that this is -- we are committed to enforcement, a former a.g. and former urs attorney in a border state, i have supervised the prosecution of more immigration cases than everybody in this room combined. i know this area very well, i've ridden that border on a horse, i've walked it, i've flown over it, i've driven it. i really know it like the back of my hand. but we will not fix immigration by only talking about the border. we need to keep working the border and then open up a discussion, really about all the other issues that immigration entails and that's issues about family unification and issues

about labor, labor needs, different kinds of labor needs and how do people under the rule of law move back and forth? >> could i ask, a follow-up, if you will, and also just -- a lot of governors in the region, i think when you were governor, have called for sending the national guard, asked authority to send the national guard to the border. how would mexico view that? >> well, let me tell you first, we are committed with a secure border. it's in our own interest for reasons -- reasons that i stated. secondly, the mexican government is very involved in its own economic recovery. hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created in this first -- [inaudible] and if we focus and discipline ourselves enough, we may find an economic recovery which is good for our nation and which which

would be important for immigration pressures to the united states. third we have to believe that we have to be discrete in this debate. it's a sovereign issue that you have to solve. we would be very -- we would like to you see at the same time the fact that most of that immigration has been good for america. most of it. and that you're a country that has fought against racism in a very important way and are you a symbol of the world in that matter. and we only hope that you don't get mingled in racial issues in that -- a part of a universal nation system we believe that that may be approached -- you have some greater things. we are hopeful in that matter.

but, we believe that part of a secure border is defined by the legal framework by which you define a secure border. and that's part of the immigration debate you have to take on here. >> thank you. over here, please. >> my question is -- [inaudible] a few days ago the military were withdrawn and yet from a matter of days, police recruits were murdered brutally, indicating they were next. did you withdraw the armed forces to on a -- too soon? >> we believe that we had to change the model from military patrolling to more police abilities in order to regain --

[inaudible] when the army entered into juarez we were looking at a lot of armed convoys of organized crime activity, walking through juarez without being stopped or controlled. the army entered there in order to prevent that kind of fashion. but when the problem of public security changed and most of the public security issues were related with guns, we understood that the abilities needed to prevent control and confront that kind of ability were more linked to police skills than to military skills. so, secondly, we have not withdrawn the army. what we have changed is the leadership, the focus of the leadership of the public security effort, from army to police. but still there's an important presence of military over there which will be targeting much the

way to prevent these kind of convoys of organized crime recirculating juarez and to work much more with the investigation of gangster. most of these gangs have some links to both sides of the order -- border so intelligence sharing, we're accomplishing there is important. and to fight on the dynamics of french fighters, no, i think we need -- did the right thing but the confrontation is not going to disappear from one day to another. the problems of the -- [inaudible] are important. juarez will not have a real solution without community participation. i will try -- we are trying to work on that and we're trying to put our government problems linked with community leadership there in order to --

[inaudible] that's not from one day to another, we believe we are in the right track but we understand that there are times in which that track will be painful. >> over here, please. >> thank you. secretary, is mexico winning the war on drugs? can we say that the worst is over? or the news aarrive something worse every day? i say this because when you look at the crime indicators, rates of terror, there's not much sign for hope. so what's your assessment on that? >> i think the violence issue is important, the an important

issue for the government. but let's put it in its right perspective. most of mexican population is not involved in violence or crime. they're involved in legal activity, legal jobs, they are involved in trying to get their life moving on and trying to prosper on progress. and that's a part of mexico what theant been seen -- that has been seen. we found more than 250,000 jobs in the last semester that for the size of our economy implies an important recovery. we're committed to that, we're at an unemployment rate which is lesser than other economies in the world and we have to see that, we went through the crisis last year with much less damage within the economy and the labor markets in mexico than in other parts of the world. we're committed to living in peace and violence -- [inaudible] we're peaceful population. we're not accustomed to that and

we won't get accustomed to that. we're going to overcome this because we're committed to build on a prosperous country and a co-existence based on peace and mutual tolerance. as i tell you, for many years the security institutions within the democratic context -- [inaudible] now they're doing so as part of the learning curve of their political transition and in doing so, -- [inaudible] democratic evolution. so, while we have to face now the cost that we didn't incur in the past. such cost is worth it and we shall prevail. i don't have any doubt about it. >> i think one point that needs to be emphasized is that we have

a joint interest in this success and because in the united states we need to do more to reduce the demand for drugs which is the foundation for that drugs, guns, money dynamic i was talking about earlier, there is some responsibility there as well. but, you know, having a safe and secure mexico trading partner, geographic neighbor, is important for the united states from any number of perspectives, from security to justice to commerce, etc. and so i think there has not been enough public dialogue about the joint interests that

are implicated. >> ladies and gentlemen, way in the back there, who's been very patient. there you go. >> thank you, all. my name is tom ricin with the national journal. secretary napolitano, you mentioned the possibility of workers giving biometric information. a few days ago when that provision was discovered in the comprehensive immigration draft, it made some headlines, and you've encountered this as governor of arizona and now as the secretary of homeland security. how do we reconcile the privacy concerns with the security concerns to document the undocumented? >> well, i think they're not inconsistent. i think that having as part of the sanction for having come into the country illegally the requirement that you provide biometrics is part of a reasonable and strong package.

after all, we need to know from a security perspective who is in the country. that's part of the reason why with a wink and a [inaudible] pretending like we're going to deport 12 million people from a security perspective, doesn't make any sense. and so when i referenced it and i was research referencing it in terms of knowing who's in the country, having done their background checks and paying other sanctions in exchange for the ability to stay in the country legally. >> within the context of the initiative, we acquired from the u.s. government some biometrics technology that we're implementing in the south of the border. we're taking biometrics from legal immigration coming from guatemalans to mexico and we don't have any knowledge that it

has been -- that no one has been offended by it, they believe it's a condition to exercise their right to travel to another country and we believe that privacy issues should be well preserved from undue access to such private data. the right to identify yourself and the right to enter through legal proceedings to another country i believe is part of the things you have to work on in the new international context because migration is part of the economic process that is going on in the whole world. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] solution 13707. house resolution 1213 and house resolution 1232 by the yeas and nays. the first vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote and

remaining votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from ohio -- the gentlewoman from, ms. fudge and agreed to house resolution 1307

speaker, house of representatives, madam. rules of the u.s. house of representatives, i have the honor top transmit a sealed envelope received from the white house on monday, may 3, 2010 at 3:23 p.m. and said to contain a message to the president whereby he submits a copy of a notice continuing the until emergency with respect to the syrian government, signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states section 202-d of the national emergency act, provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. and in accordance with the provision i have sent to the federal register the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to the actions of the government of syria declared in executive order 113338 of may 11, 2004 and relied upon for additional steps taken in executive order 13399 of april 25, 2006. and executive order 13460 of february 13, 2008 is to continue in effect beyond may 11, 2010. while the syrian government has

made progress in suppressing foreign networks and suicide bombers in iraq, its actions and policies including continuing support for terrorist organizations and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs pose a continuing, unusual and threat to the economy and of the united states i have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect the national emergency declared with respect to this threat and to maintain in force the sanctions to enforce this national emergency. as we have communicated to the syrian government directly, actions will determine whether this national emergency is renewed or terminated in the future. signed barack obama, the white house, may 13, 2010. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor

of h.r. 2927. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2927. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2927. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise tonight to recognize one of the oldest women's organizations in florida, the key west women's club, which celebrated its 95th anniversary on monday. i had the great pleasure of

representing this club, which has had a long and storied role improving the historic city of key west. on may 13, 1915, ms. mary cappick organized the women's club of key west and operated the only public library in the city as its project for the next 44 years when it was transformed into a major county facility in 1959. among its many civic projects were everything from recognition of the area's fabled history to providing personal care for the area avictims. with the president, the club has set higher records in fundraising for the less fortunate as well as many arts projects. it is my honor and privilege to recognize today the many dedicated grassroots volunteers

who have helped to make this wonderful organization of rich history and award this the women's club of florida. thank you so much. madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: the courts marshall of matthew mccabe started yesterday in norfolk, virginia. this american called one of the worst terrorists in the world, a terrorist who killed four americans in fallujah. however, a bad accused petty officer accused of poking him in the tummy when he was captured. two others were acquitted. it's not like we know the terrorists are going to be lying when they are caught. they instruct them to allege brutality because its u.s.

policy to take them off the battlefield. we have three navy seals sitting on the side lines for oversix months waiting. news reports say the terrorist is said to be executed by the iraqi government for crimes committed against his own people. our priorities are backwards. he needs to be tried instead of whining about his capture. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: albert einstein said it is the supreme art of the teacher to enjoy creative expression and knowledge. when certain people come to mind who have inspired us and there are teachers who touch our lives and opened us to the thrill of

discovery and research. the proper verb reads, tell me forget and show me and i will remember, involve me and i will understand. a teacher takes his and her students on a creative adventure each day. we ask our teachers, they must be babysitters, and police. teach our children need to know and do well on tests and in between we ask that they inspire our children to learn, create and invent. teachers have one of the hardest jobs around, on teacher appreciation day during teacher appreciation week i salute and appreciate our teachers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: saturday marks the 65th anniversary of victory in europe day one of the most see

him national days in history. the world war ii allies accepted the surrender of nazi germany and marking the end of hitler and tyranny and war it brought to the continent. the members of the greatest generation are 65 years removed from this v.e. day, yet their commitment to remembering the sacrifices that made it possible are as strong as ever. one of my constituents will be in the czech republic this saturday, this saturday to mark the anniversary with members of his former division, which was credited of firing the last shot against the germans before v.e. day. i honor each and one of the soldiers who made v.e.d. -- v.e. day possible. their accomplishments are the best this world has ever seen. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? without objection.

ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. as a member of the house homeland security committee, i rise today to thank all of the brave individuals who were able to quickly capture the times square alleged bomber who was attempting to kill many in the united states. from the vendor who noticed and said that his motto is for the american people, if you see, tell someone. to the law enforcement officers, the mounties on horses to the s.w.a.t. team and the fire department that was part of detonating or making sure it did not go off and certainly to the people of new york. i also want to thank the obama administration, the attorney general and homeland security and in particular, before we start asking questions about the no-fly lists and t.s.a., let's get the facts. we do know we're go to go have

more home-grown terrorists. america has to look very seriously as we have done at securing america. all of us are now involved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> florida has a record 12.3 unemployment rate with counties in my district hovering closer to 15%. this is unacceptable. my neighbors have waited and waiting for the jobs. they waited for cap and trade and the new health care mandated by the government. and they have waited long enough. congress must act now to stimulate job growth in the private sector. i recently co-sponsored the economic freedom act, a bill that would help businesses grow and create jobs and eliminate the capital gains tax and death tax and cut payroll tax for employers and employees and reduce the corporate income tax

rate to 12.5%. it would repeal spending in the stimulus bill and terminate the tarp program. the time to act is now. we can do better for the people of florida and for all americans. they have waited long enough. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. burton of indiana for today and mr. lucas of oklahoma for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granlt granted. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i ask that the following meams may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. mr. burton on may 5 and 6 for five minutes. mr. lincoln diaz-balart for five

minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen today and may 5. mr. franks today and may 5 and 6 for five minutes. mr. king of new york for five minutes. mr. dreier for today. mr. moran. mr. poe today. mr. posey on may 5 for five minutes. mr. poe on may 11 and mr. jones on may 11 for five minu+ on may 11 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina. >> i ask unanimous consent that following today's special orders the following members may be permitted to address the house and include extraneous material. mr. price of north carolina. ms. woolsey of saffle, ms. kaptur of ohio, mr. defazio of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009 and

under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. price of north carolina. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor a man who has served his country and this institution with distinction as an officer in the united states marine corps and i will be joined by my friend and colleague from the house democracy partnership, mr. dreier of california. he joined the marine corps legislative affairs in october of 2006. he was hired immediately for a year-long fellowship by todd akin. after completing his fellowship, the major joined the housely aceon office in 2008 as a legislatively aceon officer and promoted to deputy director of this office. like many of my colleagues, i

have had the honor and pleasure of getting to know the major over the past 2 1/2 years as he served as the interface between the marine corps and u.s. house of representatives on matters large and small. throughout his time, i have been impressed by his dedication, his professionalism, his ethic of service and above all his integrity, qualities which ex emapplyfy the ideals promoted by the united states marine corps. he has developed relationships of trust and confidence with many members and staff of the house, commanded with an uncanny ability to deliver results. anybody who has interacted with him on a policy matter of importance to the marine corps, an issue affecting a constituent service member or challenge arising in the course of an overseas delegation can't help but be struck by his infectious

confidence that everything will be resolved as expeditiously as possible. if anyone can pull it off, surely it must be may jor spiros. . along with my distinguished colleague and friend david dreier, the commission's founding chairman and now its ranking member. i've led or traveled on numerous congressional delegations which the major has planned, coordinated and escorted. by our account, housewide, he has escorted, well, he's escorted no less than a dozen h.d.p. congressional staff delegations over the last two years and he's contributed in various ways to our programming right up until the very end of his tours. housewide he has organized more than 50 congressional and staff

delegations during his tour in the house liaison office. including trips for high ranking members such as the house minority leader and the leadership of the house armed services committee. but we'd like to think that he reserves a special place in his heart for the house democracy partnership. often for going travel to more glamorous destinations to he is court or commissions to countries -- escort our commissions to countries where the need for the kind of constitutional support we can provide -- institutional support we can provide is the greatest. on these trips the major not only has excelled as an e pert travel coordinator and diplomat, he's also established himself as an advisor to h.d.p.'s work and an integral part of our programs with partner ledgeure and -- legislature and of course he's demonstrated his legendary ability to solve problems and deliver results in the most difficult circumstances. let me just give one striking example. on one occasion last year, we had a particularly ambitious around the world itinerary that

included a stop in hungary to commemorate the fall of the iron curtain followed by working visits with the legislatures of mongolia and indonesia. but unfortunately our delay -- or our arrival in beaut pest was -- budapest was delayed twice by a vote on a major bill here and then weather. by the time we were finally bound for mongolia we had nearly exhausted our air space. we faced the prospect of having to divert our mission and forgo the mongolian parliament. working literally through the night, he somehow managed to persuade an official of the u.s. embassy in beijing to roust a chinese official at his personal residence on a weekend and call in a favor to get us the clearance we needed. that's an he can dote that says a lot about the major -- anecdote that says a lot about the major.

he's just been an indispensable member of the house liaison office and he leaves some very large shoes to fill. now, in recognition of his service and leadership potential, he's been assigned to what could only be described as a hardship ballot in argentina where he will attend a command and staff program at the naval war college there. as he departs capitol hill for this next step in his career, we bid him farewell with heartfelt respect and admiration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. >> madam speaker. may i ask unanimous consent to take the time preceding the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman will take the time. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. i'd like to yield for him to conclude his remarks. >> thank you. i'll be very brief. i do want to add a word as i'm

sure my colleague will. mr. dreier: the gentleman's used all my talking points. the challenge for me will be following the gentleman's remarks. >> we do need to say something and i want to do it. acknowledging the major's wife, bree, who also deserves hur gratitude and respect for supporting her husband through three long years of early hours and frequent travels and an uncertain schedule. mr. price: she shows a lot of the same dedication and selflessness that the major himself does. we're hopeleful that this new assignment is going to offer her some light at the end of the tunnel just as it will the major. so, i thank the gentleman. mr. dreier: i thank the gentleman's contribution. madam speaker, let me say at the outset, the important to note that the major is going to be to go to bune arizona by way of california. he's -- bune airs by the way of california -- buneows airs by the way of california. my friend, mr. price, has talked about the importance of spiros

work in dealing with the missions that have been put forth by this house and specifically the house democracy partnership. and i -- i'd just like to say that when we look at the work of our partnership, mr. speaker mr. speaker, one of the very important things to note is the fact that we have gone to, as mr. price indicated, some of the most troubled spots in the world. and when i think about trips to mongolia, liberia, kenya and clearly kabul, afghanistan, the notion of congressional draffle is one where i think the perception is that most travel takes place in other spots. when in fact this house democracy partnership has been focused on a very important mission. four years ago this spring when i had the priven of beginning with mr. price the -- had the privilege of beginning with mr. price this partnership and took

on the task of putting together the countries with which we were going to partner in working to build the parliaments, i at the very outset looked to the united states marine corps. now, for full disclosure, madam speaker, i have to say that i'm very partial. my father, sometimes i regretted this, madam speaker, but my father was a drill instructor in the united states marine corps. i regretted it the first 18 years of my life especially but i have survived it. and one of the things that happened when i first had the opportunity to chair the house democracy partnership was that i made a decision that we wanted to have the united states marine corps play the important role of orchestrating and leading with the assistance that they -- only they could provide these efforts. and as we look, madam speaker, at the task that was before us, it was very appropriate for the united states marine corps and up until now with the departure of the deputy director spiros

among other great people who have served in the past, to take this task on. because the united states marines are in fact on duty in embassies throughout the world. they are on the frontline in those embassies and play a very important role and i happen to believe that, well, i will say this, many of the other branches, with all due respect to every single one of them he, approached me and said that they wanted to play a role in doing this and i said the answer was, yes, they could, as long as they enlisted in the united states marine corps. so i can't say enough about the work that he has done and the effort that the united states marine corps has put into especially the house democracy partnership. what we have done, madam speaker, is, as mr. price has said, 15 countries, 15 countries around the world, new and re-emerging democracies, where we have had the task of trying to help them take these fragile

democracies and build their parliaments. and when we think about it, it's very important to recognize that our relationship is so often simply with a head of state, but if we're going to build up democratic institutions there is none more important than parliaments that have independence and a very, very good grasp and an opportunity for oversight of the executive branch. and spiros regularly understood that and played a key role in making sure that the house democracy partnership could complete its mission. and so, madam speaker, i simply want to join with my colleague, mr. price, in extending congratulations to spiros and to wree. i -- bree. i know they're going to continue that very fine service to the united states of america in their work both in california and in buenos aires. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. woolsey from california.

ms. woolsey: madam speaker, last week the pentagon released its six-month status update on the war in afghanistan. it is a sobering report indeed. one that should make all of us question the very legitimacy of this mission. there's been a huge uptick in violence, including a 240% increase in roadside bomb attacks. the karzai government's support has sunk to embarrassing lows as more than 80% of afghan citizens say that government corruption has an impact on their lives. and barely one in four afghans rate u.s. and anyway stow forces as good or very good. this isn't lynn woolsey or the congressional progressive caucus talking at this moment. this is a report from the very people responsible for the strategy. and yet at the same time

contrary to all apparent evidence we continue to get the same spin and happy talk from the pentagon. after the report was delivered to congress last week, one senior defense official said, we have the beginning of the potential for real change. madam speaker, it's long past the moment that we should be talking about, the beginning of the potential for real change. i think 8 1/2 years is plenty of time for real change. and not just the beginning of its potential. we have been patient, we have seen more than 1,000 of our fellow americans killed. we have seen about $270 billion in taxpayer money fly out of the treasury. and after all that, afghanistan is still a terrifying, dangerous place that can't stand on its own two feet, unable to handle its own security, with an

incompetent government that enjoys little confidence or credibility. the whole point of our counteru.s. is strategy was to get the people -- counterinsurgency strategy was to get the people on the side of our government and military forces. but, madam speaker, continued instability is instead driving the civilian population straight into the arms of the taliban. again, i don't take -- don't take it from me. the pentagon report notes a ready supply of recruits is drawn from the frustrated population where insurgents exploit poverty, tribal friction and lack of governance to grow their ranks. and, madam speaker, with the kandahar offensive about to begin, kandahar offensive about to begin, the situation figures to get even worse. especially given that more than 80% of the kandahar population

embraces the taliban as afghan brothers while 94% oppose u.s. troop presence. that's according to the army's own research as cited by defense scholar mikele cullen. the security swange in kandahar is already bad enough that the u.n. has pulled its people out. madam speaker, we need a complete reorientation of u.s. policy toward afghanistan. we need a smart security approach that reveals the country instead of tearing it apart. we need to send legal scholars who can help establish rule of law and functional -- and a functional judicial system. we need to send agriculture experts who can give afghan farmers an alternative to the poppy trade which is controlled by the taliban. most of all, madam speaker, we need an immediate military

redeployment. it is time to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. mr. poe from texas. mr. poe: madam speaker, our homeland security today is paralyzed by denial, ignorance and political correctness. systemic dependence on luck is not a national security plan. it's a disaster waiting to happen. from the borders to the big cities, america's national security is always in critical or seems to be in critical disarray. in 1998 saddam hussein declared war on america -- osama bin laden declared war on america but we didn't pay attention to it. hass it going to take for our leaders to understand that radical islamic terrorists want to murder our people? law enforcement in new york, federal, state and city have done an incredible job in a short amount of time to apprehend the times square

terrorist, despite dangerous political games being played by some officials. in spite of politics, our lawmen acted swiftly, efficiently and effectively in the capture of this terrorist. but new york city mayor told the media, quote, if i had to guess 25 cents, this would be homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person, someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill. or something. now, isn't that helpful? the times square terrorist, faisal shahzad, was not a tea party going taxpayer, opposed to obamacare. there's no excuse for this reckless smear of the majority of americans who oppose the government takeover of health care. it's irresponsible to play political games with national security. and even though homeland security secretary napolitano won't use the word terrorist, all the indications are this was an act of terror. now, the terrorist, faisal

shahzad, was captured on an airplane bound for dubai. the airlines contacted the authorities to say he made a last-minute reservation for the flight, got on the plane after paying cash. he is from pakistan. somehow this radical terrorist was granted american citizenship in 2009. shahzad told the f.b.i. he went through a terror training camp in pakistan. sounds like a terrorist to me. this is where the taliban operates, the same pakistani taliban that immediately claimed responsibility for the times square foiled attack. reports say shahzad has been in pakistan for several months and eight people now have been arrested in pakistan, two of them are related to shahzad. over the past year, we've had a surge of attacks from radical islamic jihadists who murder in the name of hate. for example, the fort hood shooter killed 14 americans and injured 30 more. that was an act of terror.

the attack on the arkansas military recruiting station by a radical jihadist who killed an american soldier, that was an act of terror. and then there's the christmas day underwear bomber, that was an act of terror. in that case homeland security director or secretary janet napolitano said, quote, the system worked. when we caught the underwear bomber. that means the government planned in -- plan in that case is for passengers on the plane to tackle terrorists trying to explode bombs hidden in their underwear. that's a plan? that's our national system? combating terrorism takes vision. it takes moral clarity. there's no room for playing politics or politically correct games. ronald reagan once explained it this way, quote, above all we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so vulnerable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. it is the weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. it is a weapon that we americans

do have. let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey on their neighbors and that's just the way it is. i yield back, madam speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. kaptur from ohio. mr. jones from north coor -- carolina. without objection. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. thank you for the time. in 1993, a group of south florida women established the women's fund of miami-dade, a nonprofit dedicated to funding innovative, community programs geared towards girls and young women. at the time of the fund's creation, gender-specific community-based initiatives were nonexist tant.

according to a survey undertaken by the women's fund in 1996, only a few agencies had implemented programs exclusively for women. absent from our community were programs to assist young women seeking to advance their education or to secure their economic future or engage in professional leadership training. the women's fund of miami-dade took this cause to our south florida community and has since generated enough support to provide more than 350 gender-specific programs with the funding they so desperately require. last friday, april 30, more than 800 women gathered together at the women's fund annual power of the purse luncheon to highlight the tremendous success of past and current programs supported by the fund. these programs support women of all backgrounds and circumstances. the women's fund provides

financial assistance to lotus house, a shelter for homeless women and infants in an area of miami suffering from extreme poverty. thanks to the generous assistance by the women's fund, the house is now providing career training for women seeking entry-level positions in the restaurant and hospital industry. programs have changed the lives of young women in our community. one such women, a former lotus resident. a single mother of three was referred to lotus house. she completed a course in food preparation. the training soon led to a job in the food service industry, with new skills and a new job, tamara has a place of her own and is now better able to provide for her three children.

her story is just one of many successes achieved by the women's fund. the women's fund of miami-dade is also a powerful voice for social change. tolling together with miami-dade county, the fund has launched a campaign to increase public awareness of local services that are available to victims of domestic violence, termed voices against violence, this initiative implores victims to speak up, get help and to be safe. domestic violence is a plague on our society that demands our attention at the federal, state and local level. as an advocate of local initiatives to protect victims of domestic violence and abuse i'm proud of the women's fund. the involvement of women's fund and the relief work of haiti is

another inspiring story. in helping to rebuild this island nation, the women's fund and its supporters have shown their commitment to service and theiren rossity of spirit. according to amnesty international, nearly half of all haitian households are headed by women. experience has shown that these women and girls will be the key in helping to rebuild haiti and creating a safe and stable and prosperous nation. the women's fund is in a unique position to highlight this reality and to make sure that haiti's future growth and transformation will touch all sectors of its society. since i got to congress, madam speaker, it has been one of my objectives to ensure that women have equal opportunity to a higher education, that they are protected from harassment and intimidation in the workplace and have access to lifesaving health screening for heart disease and breast cancer.

i'm so grateful for the tremendous leadership of local organizations, such as the women's fund, in working towards these important and attainable goals. and i look forward to collaborating with the women's fund of miami-dade in the years to come. thank you, madam speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. defazio from oregon. mr. moran. mr. calvert. mr. franks. mr. paul. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. garamendi: thank you, madam speaker. i request unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. mr. garamendi: tonight, it's really important that america come to understand how the great collapse of 2008 occurred and what its impact has been. i think they have a pretty good idea what the impact is. we see it back home and see it from our constituents and families as they face layoffs, face losing their homes and the mortgages they are no longer able to afford. how did all this happen. we want to discuss that tonight and discuss the effect that's having on our constituents and at the same time, we want to talk about what are we going to do about it, how are we going to set straight the financial institutions of america. we know that collapse was caused by some extraordinary shenigans on wall street that should never have been allowed to be played but because of lack of regulation on the part of the s.e.c. and attitude that

occurred from 2000-2008 period, anything goes, the free market will regulate itself. it didn't. it put this nation and the entire world on the edge of total collapse. joining me tonight is my colleague from california and from ohio. i would like to start with congresswoman spear -- ms. speaker, i was going to introduce her where she gained extraordinary knowledge about the banking industry and share with us tonight her new position on the house financial committee. so ms. speier. ms. speier: thank you, mr. garamendi. as you were talking about the shennigans what we heard last week was deeply troubling to all

of us and the chairman, mr. levin did an outstanding job in focusing in on what was really going on at goldman sachs. so we started last week here on our house floor looking at goldman sachs' principles that they have espoused and on their website and started saying what their principles were and emails suggested what they were really up to. i thought we would focus on one principle. one of their principles is we stress creativity and imagination in everything we do. this is the top one up here. while recognizing that the old ways may still be the best way, we constantly strive to find a better solution to a client's problems. we pride ourselves on having pioneered many of the practices and techniques that have become

standard in the industry. now, in an email from goldman sacks' v.p., he says, and i quote, standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leverage, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monday tropical storm ties, it is a -- monstrosities. he called it a product of pure intellectual masturbation. the type of thing which you invent telling yourself, we created a thing which had no purpose, which is concept you'll and theoretical which nobody knows how to price. mr. garamendi: is that the creativity that goldman sachs so

prided itself on creating something that was unpriceable, that nobody could figure out what it was and couldn't price it? what did they do with this frankenstein that was created? ms. speier: this is what is interesting. this is son of the frankensteins they were creating. here is a tower, the sound view home loan trust. and if you look at the bottom there, that little yellow column was some pretty bad stuff. these were mortgages that were poorly rated. mr. garamendi: this was the packaging of the mortgages that were being sold to people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages? ms. speier: these were the mortgages that were then packaged and sold to investors because they were grade a and

would make them a lot of money. but what happened here is they took this one thing and brought brought it over here. b grade. how do you think -- take something that is b grade and make it investment quality? mr. garamendi: my lying. ms. speier: being creative. and this is what they did and it was described in a book called "the big short" by michael lewis. he said goldman sachs created a security so complex that it would be misunderstood by investors and rating agencies. the mortgage-backed c.e.o.'s or collateralized debt obligations. he said bbb-rated bonds were harder to sell than iii but huge sums of money to be made if you could get them re-rated as