i will tell you the truth. we could bulldoze columbia. you could take peru and bolivia with it if you wanted to end it would not make any difference whatsoever with regard to our drug problems here in our country. why? because the demand is here. the demand will be met. if the demand is here, the demand will be met. . .

>> it wouldn't make any difference with regard to our country but they could start regulating, taxing and controlling and getting rid of

the these. we get rid of the calid car tell. nothing happens. i'm told there's more drugs coming through panama today as well. take it at my level. i'm here to tell you, i've talked to a lot of undercover de a's privately. i'm a judge in orange county, california. when you see we have seed a ton of cocaine, it's only 5%, every

ton we seize, we fail to get rid of 10-15 tons. you know why i'm doing this? i believe the most patriot yik thing we can do is repeal the drug prohabition. taking aside it has its roots in racism and slavery. it does not take a sociologist

and see that people of color are va vastly more recommended. the roots of prohibition are racists. the roots of cocaine comes from the fear of those strong black males. it was those mexicans. they are going to use this mark ot yik, which it isn't, to

basically lead a stray white women. ok. as a judge, i'll enforce the law. shame on us. that does not make me proud. another reason, the united states of america leads the world in the incourse operation of our people. here i assure you. i'm from ucla. we lead the world in the incarceration of our people. does that make you proud? >> 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. i'll end this and say, you know the ranked corporation came out with a study that said we get 7 times more the value.

even for heavy drug addicted people.

>> it's a real issue. the answer is, i don't know. i am absolutely convinced if we

in california pass proposition 19, which i pray we do, the obama election is facing reelection. they are not going to snub their nose add california. just like they honor the state system. they did that with regard to medical marijuana they said as long as people are in line with state and local law was marijuana. i am vicinitiesed they will do the same thing with regard to prop 19. they will come out and say, this is silly, you were miss lead but we are going to let you do it. and then, honestly, it will work. it won't be wonderful but it

won't be harmful. gangs will make less money. revenue will come in. the quality will be there. understand i was in a room on three separate occasions where the hoover institute sponsored a sem sem far. >> same thing with my fellow judges. what do they think privately or public

publicly. but we need political covering. i have a real political job. i have to toned r respond to the mayor and city court. i can't do that. politicians are really good at one thing. they are good at follower shshi i'm convinced that this is where it will go as well. other states will start copying

as well. they are doing it already. >> have law enforcement officials come out, what's the position on prop 19? >> i testified in sacramento before the league of cities basically made up of retired enforcement people. for still pretty hard line on this. they are still let's get tough, not smart, just tough. i am involved with leap, which is law enforcement against prohibition. now there are 10,000 members involved in law enforcement one way or another. i came out publicly. they go out and speak about this. law enforcement against prohibition. it's amazing.

it is unfortunate you have to retire to speak the truth. i spoke numbers of years ago to an american bar association seminar where they brought in the choef justices and justices from supreme courts from around the country. i spoke to them about three hours. i got a letter, dear jim, you are right. i see this coming across my desk all the time. but, i love my job. i gave up law to be here. if i were to speak about this in north carolina, i couldn't keep

my job. keep doing this, i can't join you. since then, he has come out to discussion this too. we are intimidating them away from discussion. i will end this part by saying i guarantee that two years after this, everybody in the country will lack book to be a stonished

this is the biggest mess. >> someone said, if you give a man a mask, he will tell you the truth. >> it wouldn't surprise me if you could take an anonymous pole that we would make real progress. they understand that, again it's money, money drives the bus. the strongest lobby group in the state of california is the prison guard group.

they have an invested interest to keep their police high. what an obscence thing to be doing. there must be other questions too. >> one of the issues we are looking at is alternative incarceration. in terms of your experience as a judge, what is your impression of drugs or other alternative incarceration as a way of dealing with the laws that we have. >> i do believe in alternative incarceration. i'm sorry that you would think i

wouldn't. i would change the system. in prop 36 in california, which passed six years ago, diverts users out of the system. very good thing. a lot of people there. i've never used marijuana. you could give it away and i'm not going to shove cocaine up my nose. but a lot of people who do use it are not harmful to anyone but themselves. there's a major problem with prop 36.

drug courts work. they require people to treat people as people. that doesn't mean they are not held accountable.

i look at mem and say, you even eat rum cake and i find out about it, i'll put you in jail. i'd say you used alcohol, honestly. which do you prefer? i'd get letters, i was going to divorce my husband. he'd get drunk and beat me and

the kids but now he's back to the man i married. jail time is important to keep people hold people accountable for what they put into >> a great note to close on. our time is up. thank you for coming. >> up next, live at 7:a.m. calls and comments on washington

journal. >> the c-span networks, non-fiction books and american history. all available to you on television and on line. find our content any time. c-span on the road. bringing our resources to our community. now available. more than 100 million homes created by cable as a public service. >> homeland security secretary discusses u.s. border security. she made the remarks after president obama signed into law the 600 million measure. this is about 40 minutes

>> i was very pleased to be with the president earlier when he signed a bill committing $600 million more in resources along the border. i would like to especially thank harry reid and nancy pelosi. the legislation that permit resources that will continue to bolster security along the south west border, supporting our efforts to crack down on transnational criminal organizations and reduced the trafficking of people for currency and weapons. the bill is important in two respects. first, it adds new resources to the border. second, it makes permanent many of the assets and that this administration has surged along

the border during the past 18 months. let me pause there for a moment. i have worked on border issues as a public servant for 17 years, starting in 1993 as the united states attorney in arizona, then the attorney general of arizona, then the governor of arizona, and continuing through today as the secretary of homeland security. what is significant about this bill, in addition to its content, is that it has something, with b bipartisan support, the gives us the ability to continue efforts that were well under way, to ensure that the border is not and should not be a litical iss. it is a matter of national security in which we all have a stake. on that score, even before the president signed this bill, the administration had already voted more resources to the southwest

border than at any point in american history. these efforts are making a difference. they are the reason why everything that is supposed to be going up is going up and everything it is supposed to be going down is going down. seizures are up and rose across the board last year. apprehensions are down. for the first time ever, we are screening 100% of southbound rail. criminal moves are at an all- time high. added more manpower and resources to the border than ever before. this is a long-term effort to be to the cartels and to continue to secure the border. the administration is dedicat to that approach. that is why the president ordered 1200 national guard troops to the border. is why he asked congress to assist with supplemental funding. now, the bill.

in terms of manpower, the bill provides for one dells and additional border patrol agents. it can take -- 1000 additional border patrol agents. it facilitates legal traffic and intercedes contraband. enables ice to help combat narcotics smuggling. provides two more unmanned aircraft systems and will deploy tactical communications technology that will improve enforcement, particularly along some of the more remote areas of the border. it also includes $196 million for the justice department to add prosecutors, immigration judges, and support for detention and incarceration of criminal aliens in coordination

with our homeland security enforcement efforts. in terms of infrastructure, it includes $6 million operating bases to improve our border enforcement activity. this bill is clearly another step forward on border security, on top of the significant progress that the administration has already made. it is one of the many tools in the toolbox we have constructed along the border. so, we are very pleased with the swift passage. we are very pleased the president was able to sign this bill into law today. now, i am happy to take your questions. >> the president has said that the problems along the border are too vast to be stalled --

solved with fences and border patrols. is the administration and now in any way conceding that comprehense immigration reform is not tenable? >> i would say quite the opposite. the administration's position is that this bill as too siificant border security efforts that have been underway for the past 18 months. the administration is very intent now in saying look, this bill passed a bipartisan basis. now, let's get republicans to the table, finally, so that we can address the whole issue of immigration reform. these are not a sequential items. these are things that should be done it together. >> knowing the politics as well as the policy, is comprehensive rerm stillomething that could happen within the next couple of years? >> absolutely, and it needs to happen.

i say this as someone who has a lot of experience with the immigration issue along the border. we need a safe and secure borders. this is a 2,000 mile expanse. it allows all as legitimate and legal trade and commerce and goods. people people -- people need to be able to go back and forth safely and securely. as a nation, we also need immigration reform. >> the president were done this in 2005, 2006, 2007 as a leader of the united states senate. leaders made decisions toreate a bill because democrats and republicans worked together. nothing will happen on this issue in a comprehensive way that only involves one party or one person.

secretary napolitano oppose the state has leaders that were willing to make tough -- state has leaders the or willing to make tough decisions. we will get comprehensive reform when the democrats and republicans are willing to be leaders. only then. it is not enough to go through the senate -- it will not be able to go to the senate and the house and get to the president's desk because one party has willed it to do so. >> how does this differ fro that? >> the efforts on overall immigration reform are ongoing. the point i am making is that you need to multitask. the needo secure the border, have a safe border area, and you

need immigraon reform. that is what this program has set out to do. that is what he is asked to the department of homeland security to work on. that is why we have invited republicans and republican leadership to the table and said, look, let's get the issue of immigration reform. at the same time, we want to make sure that the border itself, that 2,000 mile expands, is safe and secure. >> following on that, i am wondering if you could talk a little more is specifically about the president goes a timetable for bringing about a comprehensive -- president pose a timetable for bringing about a comphensive reform comment -- president's timetable for bringing about comprehensive reform, for getting republins to the table. >> the purpose of this briefing today is to about getting this bill passed and its significance. the president made a formal

request on sunday and in in june. we have already begun moving forces in addition to what we have already put the border, to the border. this will allow us to make some of those movements permanent. the additional 100 border patrol agents on top of the 20,000 we already have it is significant. 200 ice agent being dedicated to the cartels that use that route, that is very significant. adding aircraft to the ones we already have, that allows us the capacity for 24/7 their coverage along the border. this is the most extensive border security package that we have ever seen. >> the question was, what is the timetable passed this bill for

taking the next step, and how much is contingentn the election? >> the president has said from the beginning that immigration reform was a priority for him. e. reiterated that recently in a speech that you are quoting from. he has invited congress to the table, but again, as was sd earlier, this is in the hands of the congress. they will need to address this in a bipartisan way. cannot only be done by democrats. republicans have to be willing to be at the table. >> nobody has suggested, that i have heard, that only one step needs to be taken to have comprehensive immigration reform. this is an aspect of it. it is something we always mention, but there are obviously other aspects that are needed and that people are interested in doing.

the president has reached out to and talk to democrats and republicans on this issue. we just need a little support to make it happen. >> if you do not get comprehensive reform, is this and not just then a drop in the bucket in attacking the problem? >> and no, and i say this ain as someone who has worked extensively in a border state. the border region is an important, critical area for this country. so much trade and commerce occurs alo there. peop live in communities in that region. we want to make sure that region is safe and secure and that requires a law enforcement approach that includes manpower, that includes infrastructure, that includes technology. that is why this bill, added to what we have already done, and gives us the resources necessary for that kind ofystem to be in place. that makes a lot of difference

to people who live in that area, into the country as a whole. >> you mentioned the crossings are down. to what degree do you think that is the result of the economy, because there simply are not dogs here for people who want to cross the border? to what degree is it because of the systemic measures that have been taken? >> we cannot give you specific numbers, but i can tell you from my own experience that crossings are down. i would say 50%-60% from even two years ago. >> almost all of that must be because of the economy. >> is there to say that the economy has something to do with it. -- it is fair to say that the economy has something to do with it. it is also fair to say that the additional resources at the also have something to do with it. we have undertaken an

unprecedented partnership with mexican law enforcement. that also is having an effect. >> to follow on that, can you quantify what extra money and resources will mean in terms of the percentages of what you're trying to bring down? >> i am not sure i understand the question. >> you're trying to limit narcotics trafficking and human trafficking. $600 million. national guard troops. can you quantify the effect that will have? >> it is difficult to quantify and-, how much have we prevented from occurring. weekend tell you how much crossings have gone down and how much seizures -- we can tell you how much crossings have gone down and how much the seizures have gone up. >> it seems like you are

laying the groundwork for political theater in november. so what is the effect you want this to have? >> i think you will see crossing's go down and seizures go uppe. i think you will see crime rates along the border remain stable or keep going down, so the communities along the border are safer because of this money. there are all kinds of ways you can look at it. >> a follow-up to the timing. the policy pieces are being put in place, and now it is simply a political problem to get reform through congress. >> it is fair to say that it is time for immigration reform.

the administration is ready to invite the congress to get at it, but again, as was said, it cannot be just one party. republican leadership now needs to come to the table. >> as you know, republicans here in washington and in the region and say that while this is helpful and will this money is helpful, it is nowhere near enough. do you agree that more is needed, or do you think we really have the resources we need at this point to dthat job? >> i think this bill matches very well with what the president asked for in in june. it augments what we hadlready sent down to the border beginning in march of 2009. i think the people perhaps did not recognize the fact that since rch of 2009, we have been moving resources to the border. this allows us to make some of those resources permit, not temporary. i believe that we have designed what needs to happen at this

border. we have a good idea what it takes to keep this border safe and secure, and this money will allow us to do that. again, it shows that whethe congress acts in a bipartisan fashion, even on a complicated issue like border security, things can move a rather swiftly. >> i did not understand for sure how you are responding to my specific question. do you think this is enough or is more needed? >> i think this is what we asked for and, of course what we asked for is what we thght would be enough. >> it takes 1500 more agents to be hired and trained. >> the average time to be boos on the ground is eight months. >> want to get all of these in

place, -- once you get all of these in place, you feel you have a long-term foundation. is the gap widening between border security and the more political issue of what to do with illegal immigrants who are here now? isn't that a problem that requires further discussion, with all of the lawsuits out there? is that becoming further and further from a possibility not only this year but next? >> that goes to the issue of underlying immigration reform th is already in the country. we have t clear priorities for ice abt who they should prosecute from a law enforcement perspective, just like any prosecution office would. focus on criminal aliens. record numbers are being removed from our country. focus on ng membe. we focus on felony fugitives.

when you look at the numbers, the numbers show that ice has made significant strides in that regard and record numbers are being removed. >> part of this bl has to do with doing business in india. [unintelligible] will this bill impact the u.s./india relationship? >> i think the method of

payment, which is an increase the visa charge for certain business related business the says, makes a lot of sense. it says we will pay for immigration out of the visa system. that way it does not come out of the general fund, which is necessary for so many other things. the senate was able to find a way to fund this bill that does not add to the deficitnd allows us to get to the enforcement moneys we need on a permanent basis. >> will impact u.s. a/india relations? >> i think this administration has a very close relationship with india and we hope to sustain it as such.

>> there is a concern about the temporary worker program. the head of the national urban league says there need to be more accountability just in case a company decides they need to go outside the united states to bring in workers. what do you say about that, bringing in more accountability, making sure that companies have exhausted all avenues for who wants to work in that company? >> we are all concerned and focused on making sure that in the business side of the it minuimmigration process and that rules are enforced anthat jobs are not unfairly denied it to american workers.

>> what kind of accountability efforts are you putting in place to make sure that businesses are exhausting every measure that they can to make sure that no one in the united states wants the job before they go out io mexico to hire? >> we could give you a separate briefing. they have been conducting a lot of oversight visas that are given to make sure that the rules are being followed. >> you are talking about the need for republicans to come to the table. lindsey gramm has been working on this issue. is the administration reaching out to him? >> that have reached out to a number of republicans, including senator gramm. i think we all recognize that this is an issue that is not going to go away.

immigration needs to be addressed, even as we secure the border. so yes, the administration has reached out to republican leadership and t others, including senator gramm. >> has he indicated that he would be willing to work with youn this? >> eco signed an op ed with senator schumer -- he cosigned an off-bed with senator schumer -- op-ed with senator schumer. the president endorsed it, and it laid out the fmework for what the immigration reform should be geared >> that was a while ago. again, i see no sign that there is any change in his position. >> last week after someone was killed in a drunk driving accident, you asked for a

review of the cirmstances that allowed the driver to be back in by icepack i 2008ce 20. what questions are you hoping that review will answered -- released buy ice back in 2008. what questions are you hoping that review will answer? >> we want to know why someone on his record was released onto the road. >> will those results be made public? >> let me not answer that question prematurely. i do not know whether there will be a compromise of an ongoing investigation. to the extent that we can make

things public, we absolely want to. >> a number of republicans, notably on the house side, have indicated they would be warmer toward comprehensive immigration reform if there was more being done on offense. was moreoney -- being done on at the fence. was more money put into the fence, and what is the status of that? >> there is not money for in thisa fence suppmental. we have built a fence at to an extent that exceed appropriations. in our view, the offense is there. but that is only part of this. -- the fence is there. but that is on the part of this.

as i said when i was governor, show me a 15 foot fence and i will show you a 16 foot ladder. we need the infrastructure, but we also need theechnology and the manpower to back it up. >> so you are saying that it is only 6 miles srt of completion. >> tha is right. i may be corrected, but i believe that 6 miles is in litigation. >> you said there is money in the bill for incarceration and prosecution. is that record deportation straining your existing resources? >> it is fair to say that it was. one of the things about this bill that is as significant is that it recognizes that this is system. it is a system that crosses the federal department. u're going to increase efforts on border security, efforts on moving and according criminal

aliens and the like -- deporting criminal aliens and the like, you need more of the detention side, on the u.s. attorney's side, and the justice aside. there is money in here for the justice department. >> could i ask you to weigh in on the 14th amendment controversy? do you think it is remotely passable? what do you make, from an immigration perspective and a policy perspective, about the discussion of the 14th amendment? are you surprised that senator gramm raised thessue? >> of to say that i am -- i have to say that i am surprised, to say the least, the discussion

is being held about amending the united states constitution before we even get to the table on amending the statutes that actually carry out immigration policy. i think that wre the action needs to be any talk of amending the constitution is just wrong. >> i wonder if you have discussed that with the president and if you have a sense of his feelings? >> i spoke on this ticket days ago. -- two days ago. the president and secretary napolitano agree on this. the 14th amendment has provided equal protection and due process for more than 150 years. these are two things that we do not think need to be tampered with. amending our constitution takes

a long time. with a little leadership, we could have comprehensive immigration reform. it is always interesting that -- i said this the other day -- and that those to have -- those who have talked with fidelity about not tampering with our constitution have not chosen at the 14th amendment as an approach to immigration reform here it is rich with irony. >> do e is see this legislation in part as an answer to criticism? >> i think her factual premise

was wrong data the facts are the facts and the facts are that there are more border patrol agent at that border than ever before. there's more infstructure of the border than ever before. there is more technology, more air cover, and the results are the results. illegal trafficking is way down and seizures of drugs and guns is way up. the factual premise that she posited, which is that somehow the federal government had ignored arizona, was just inaccurate and unfairly so. we will continue to augment the resources that we have been putting into arizona, particularly the east side of the state, the tucson sector. when i was a u.s. attorney, i supervised the prosecution of at

least 6000 immigration felonies. is is an area that i know quite well. there has never been a greater federal presence at the border. the factual premise for the criticism was wrong. i did meet with at the governor in boston. we discussed all of the things that we were doing at the arizona border. it was a very professional and cordial conversation. >> republicans along the way have said that we have to secure the border first. you yourself have listed a number of steps that the administration has taken during the past 18 months. my question to you is, first of all, how will the admistration respond, because there are already republicans saying that this is an important first step but more has to be done. though well decide that the border is a secure if that is

what is -- how will decide that the border is secure if that is what is needed for comprehensive reform? >> about to march of 2009 when we began moving assets and resources down to the southwest border. i disagree with the characteristic. secondly, as i said before, this is a great bill for us. it adds border patrol agent, is agent, air cover, up-to-date technology, which is really important, because some areas you cannot cover witcell phones because there are no cell towers down there. you really need the communications capacity. the but is there -- that part is there. what i would simply say is that sometimes i hear could secure

the border," and the goal post just keeps moving. we'll do everything we need to do to have a safe and secure a soutest border. we now have a secure community system along every one of the 25 counties along the border. we willontinue to ensure that our efforts are informed by good intelligence and analysis of the we are not just throwing money at the border. that should not be used anymore to preclude discussions about immigration reform. as i have said many times, these should not be sequential, they should go together. >>ce has said they all lead a 2000 deportations' a year because they do not have more

resources -- the only due to a thousand deportations' a year because -- they only do 2000 deportation's a year because they do not have the resources. do you think this will lead to more deportations. >> i believe so. can i give you a number? and no, it would be premature to do so, but obviously, our goal is to make the best, most efficient use of the money that we received from the congress and focus it on where wehink the best ever got to be, and that is making sure we are removing criminals, a felony fugitives, gang members in our country illegally, particularly once a day have served their sentences. for those who do -- once a they have served their sentences.

>> has this bill then hijacked to include more law-enforcement? >> but that is wrong. this is the bill the president asked for. asked for it becse he knows that we can make good use of this money for permanent and consistent security. that is what we want to have. thatn no way should be read to suggest, imply, or in any way back off of the fact that we also need immigration reform. >> [inaudible] >> again, operation and

streamline has proven effective in the places where it is in use. we use it in some places. it is very expensive. there other methods we use that have proven equally effective. we're trying to make the best use of taxpayer dollars to make sure they are targeted to do where they can do the best. streamlined pitch region is one way, mexico is another way -- -- streamline the repatriation is one way. mexico is another way. we have a tool box. we have a system. now, with this money, again, passed with the support of senator mccain, we can do more. >> he is a bet leadership is

needed from republicans and democrats in congress -- you said that leadership is needed from republicans and democrats in congress in order to have immigration reform. congress is as a leadership is needed from the white house. -- says the leadership is needed from the white house bid >> on the congress can pass a bill. the president can advocate. it can agree to a framework. and explore and suggest ideas. can it give a major address that spells out what is needed in a bill, but only congress can pass a bill. >> this bill raises the fee on a visa. is this discrimination and will it hurt relationship with india?

>> i do not think it well. the united states and india have a robust and vital relationship, and nothing in this bill should interfere with that the request just to follow u. >> just to follow up [inaudible] >> that has not been raised

>> harry trueman hated this movie. he was seens a senator from the machine in kansas city. i always wonder if he didn't think this was like a relationship with him and thivengs back home. >> this morning, we'll talk with mckinzy eaglen about reaction