callers that said deregulating the banks really caused the problems. theis it a they say government -- the banks are too big to fail? why can't they allow the government to take over them and allow them to be dismantled and instead of all the people losing their homes, the government can take the asset and put it through the other banks and -- host: we have to leave it there. we did talk about this before, and that is what the new powers of the fdic are supposed

to do. they will sell the assets that are good it to other banks who can then keep those assets performing and these kinds of solutions could help keep people in their homes as well, but of course there are other problems than just banks failing that depressed the mortgage market needs to be a debt restructuring, which i mentioned earlier, in the mortgage market that has not been done and has been shied away from because banks are opposing it. the banks oppose it because they're too weak to handle losses. host: yalman onaran is a senior writer for "bloomberg businessweek." thank you. we now have to the senate judiciary committee. -- we now head to the senate judiciary committee. this is front of the homeland security department of oversight.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we are waiting for the senate judiciary committee. they are going to hear from janet napolitano. there will focus on areas of immigration, citizenship, and border security issues. this is one day after the u.s. reported that the deported nearly 400,000 people in the past fiscal year. that is the largest number of removals in immigration and customs enforcement history. john morton announced the 2011 numbers in washington yesterday, saying 55% of those deported had felony or misdemeanor convictions. so janet napolitano the only witness scheduled today. the hearing is set to go to

about 1:00 p.m. eastern. also today, the senate has returned for more debate on three 2012 spending bills rolled into one. transportation and housing and urban developers. look for an amended debate on the senate floor and possibly some votes and you can fall back on c-span -- and you can follow that on c-span2.

>> good morning, everybody. thank you for being here. it has been another good week for our federal law-enforcement efforts. last tuesday we learned of a fold assassination attempt in the united states of the saudi ambassador to the united states -- of a foiled assassination attempt. based on a was in the press, we know that would have been a disaster the weight they wanted to carry that out. this case involves the department of justice, the dea

in a coordinated effort to stop a terrorism act on u.s. soil. i want to praise the agencies involved in the investigation. they did not engage in armchair quarterbacking about whether the suspect should be sent to guantanamo bay. a terrorist attempt to blow up an airplane on christmas day, some politicians used the occasion to criticize the attorney general after the suspect was arrested and made all kinds of claims, none of which came clotrue. people are asking why he was given miranda rights. if someone is going to confess, they will confess given the miranda rights or not. it is more difficult to make them stop talking. we got a lot of useful

intelligence from the suspect. people complain about him going to federal court. he showed -- we showed that our courts work, they are open. he pled guilty and faces a potential life sentence. prosecution can feel happy that they followed the way they did and not listen to the monday quarterbacks. he now faces a potential life sentence. that means more than 400 terrorism cases prosecuted by the department of justice since september 11, 2001. the president and the national security team have done a tremendous job of taking the fight to our enemies. earlier this year the president ordered a successful strike against osama bin laden.

he stayed focused on destroying al qaeda from his first day in office. i know teams were put together after the president came into office. i commend him and the cia and others on that. a terrorist operative was located in yemen. one case was horrible and tragic, the case at fort hood. do we remain vigilant? of course. in the aftermath of 9/11, the country has spent trillions of dollars trying to shore up our security. there were some wasteful and ineffective measures in the early years. the bush-cheney administration shifted our focus from bin

laden to sodom hussein -- to sodom hussein -- saddam hussein in iraq. we continue to take money from programs in the united states including education and medical it intoh, and we doump iraq. we are ready for any discussion about a new chapter in our efforts. secretary napolitano, we first met back in the days when you were a prosecutor and ag. i have a great deal of admiration for you and the way you run your office and i think you for joining us today. i look forward to hearing from you today. our priorities should be moving forward. i hope that your department can strengthen its efforts to provide knowledge -- others have

been devastated by these recent natural disasters. this is much needed. i do appreciate all the department's efforts in rebuilding after the devastating floods we experienced this spring and summer. i was born in vermont and i've never seen anything so disastrous in my life. it reminds me of the stories my parents and grandparents were talking about 100 years ago. this is difficult for americans as winter approaches. we should not complicate the situation with the edit certainty that comes from ideologically -- the result in inaction and funding for disaster relief. the american people wait for disaster assistance should not be victimized again. americans should help other

americans as we have for generations. as somebody said to me, we seem to have an unlimited amount of money to build roads and houses and bridges in iraq and afghanistan. americans will protect them and use them. we bear the full brunt of hurricane irene. businesses were destroyed. i want to compliment the minister for fema and the staff. my wife and i have visited some of the fema offices and we thank the people that were doing that. from border security and other areas, we have a progress report. i think it is time to renew a discussion on comprehensive immigration reform. the discussion went off track after a bill was passed in 2006.

i look forward to your help there. change is never quick or simple. the kind of change depends on determination. i realize it is a different world than when my grandparents emigrated from italy to the united states to vermont, but we have to realize that we're a nation of immigrants and we have to have a better immigration policy. i look forward to the day when barricades began to fall. hearts and minds will change. new doors of opportunities will spring open. immigrants won only to live the american dream -- immigrants want only to live the american dream. so with that, senator grassley,

i yield to you. >> it is often an overlooked function for members. it is not always glamorous. it is hard work and it can be frustrating because of bureaucratic stonewalling. the president-elect was talking about the most transparent government ever. unfortunate, this administration has been far from transparent. today's hearing will give us an opportunity to ask questions. i am frustrated by the less than forthcoming and just we have received from me administration. we need a little bit more straight talk. i feel our concerns are often dismissed. last week, 19 senators received a response to a letter that we sent to the president about immigration policies. the response did not come from

the secretary. it came from a bureaucrat in the office of legislative bureaucratic affairs. it is as if our concerns are trivial or insignificant. we wrote to the president. a memo encouraged immigration and customs enforcement officers to exercise prosecuting discretion. officers were asked to consider the aliens' lanes of presence in the united states, particularly if the alien came as a young child, their age, service in the military, and pursued an education in the united states. on august 80, the secretary announced an initiative to establish a working group to sort through a number of cases currently pending before the federal courts to determine if

they can be closed. combined these directors are alarming, especially to those of us who believe in the rule of law. we have many unanswered questions. we want answers and we want transparency and accountability. we are a part of the process. the american people are shareholders. americans also want the truth. i am frustrated about the tactics in clans that had deported more undocumented people than ever before. the secretary continues to use statistics that are inflated. that office has been around awhile, since 1883. so i would like to know why the

secretary jury picks what numbers she wants to use or refuses to use the statistics provided by the office of immigration reform. i will point out to all of you to look at the poster. the department has a credibility problem. there was a headline that says -- "unusual methods help ice break deportation methods." there were patting the numbers -- they were patdding the numbers. the secretary gave a speech on october 5, saying in 2010, ice removed over to order thousand

criminals -- 200,000 criminals. there was a difference of 27,000. we do not know what to believe. the department is using different methodology from one year to the next. homeland security personnel are encouraging people to do what they can't to increase the removal numbers. there is funny business going on and the department's credibility is at stake. but don't just take it from this senator. even the president and knowledge that the numbers are dubious. president obama said that the statistics are a level deceptive. i would like to hear from the secretary about what they continued to use these deceptive statistics and when the continue to use iced figures -- ice figures.

i like assurances that this administration is not using creative ways to keep as many undocumented people in this country. we have talked about deferred action and parole. one of the most egregious options in that memo was a proposal to lessen the extreme hardship standard. "to increase the number of individuals applying for waivers and improve their chances of deceiving them. they could issue a regular -- regulations specifying a lower the evidentiary standard for extreme hardship. if the standard is lessoened, there will be able to bypass the bars that are clearly laid out." i expect to hear from the

secretary anything is being laid out. i will wonder that such an action will be a blatant attempt to circumvent the laws that were put in place. i am concerned by the administration's position when it comes to suing states when it comes to immigration laws. news reports claims that there are challenges in utah, georgia, and south carolina. what about cities and states that ignore federal law? will the administration turn a blind eye to them? i've asked secretary napolitano about the involvement of custom officers been detailed to phoenix to the operation. i ask the secretary about whether she had any communication about fast and

furious with her former chief of staff who was the u.s. attorney in arizona responsible -- i did not give any response back. mr. burke is to be commanded to be the only person to resign and take responsibility for the failed operation. i do not feel he should be obligated to be the only fall guy. others should step up to take responsibility. thank you. >> thank you. secretary napolitano, the free to start. i think the senators -- i thank the senators. others will be joining us. there are a number of other hearings going on at the same time, as you know from your own experience. most of us served on half a

dozen different committees. someone not be here. please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to testify today. i would like to update you on the progress we're making, particularly with respect to our efforts to prevent terrorism and to enhance security and to secure and manage our borders and to enforce our immigration laws. we have continued to grow and mature as the department by strengthening our existing capabilities, building new ones, enhancing our partnerships across all levels of government and with the private sector, and streamline our operations and increasing efficiency. we know the terrorist threat facing our country has evolved significantly over the last 10 years, and continues to evolve. we thought face a threat

environment where violent extremism and terrorism are not defined or contained by international borders. we must address threats that are homegrown as well as those that originate abroad. dhs has worked to build a new architecture to better defend against this evolving terrorist threat. we're working with law enforcement and community-based organizations to counter violent extremism at its source, using many of the same strategies that have proven successful in combating violence in american communities. we are focused on getting resources and information out of washington, d.c., and into the hands of state and local law enforcement, to provide them with the tools they need to combat threats. we continue to participate in joint task forces and work with our partners at the department

of justice on the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiative. we encourage the public to play a role -- if you see something, say something. we replaced the color-coded alert system with a new national terrorism advisory system to provide timely information about credible terrorist threats and recommended security measures. these steps provide a strong foundation that dhs and our partners can use to protect communities, engage and partner with the international committee, and protect the privacy rights and civil liberties of all americans. this administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to securing our borders. we have made the enforcement of our immigration law smarter and more effective, focusing our

resources on removing those individuals who fit our highest priorities. these include criminal aliens as well as repeat immigration law violators, recent border crossings, an immigration fugitives. the efforts are achieving unprecedented results. overall, ice remove nearly 397,000 individuals. 90% of those fell within one of our priority categories. 55% or more than 216,000 of the people removed were convicted criminal aliens. 89% increase in the removal of criminals over fiscal year 2008. this includes more than 87,000 individuals convicted of homicide, sexual offenses, or driving under the influence. we removed -- more than 2/3 in

fiscal year 2011 fell into recent border crossing and fugitives. as part of the effort to continue to focus the immigration systems resources on high prairie cases, ice has implemented policies to insure that those enforcing immigration laws make appropriate use of the discretion they already have in deciding the types of individuals prioritize for removal from the country. this policy will help immigration judges and the federal courts to focus on adjudicating a high priority removal cases more swiftly and in greater numbers, enhancing ice's ability to remove convicted criminals. this will promote border security.

it will allow for the expansion of ice operations along the southwest border. we have stepped up our actions against employers who hire illegal labor and take action to identify visa overstays and combat human trafficking. smart enforcement is just one part of the overall puzzle. this administration is committed to making sure we have a southern border that is safe, secure, and open for business. we have more than -- we are two into our initiative. the additional manpower and resources we have added with bipartisan support are working. illegal immigration the thames have decreased -- illegal immigration attempts have decreased over the past two

years and are less than 1/3 of what they were at their peak. we have matched decreases in apprehension with increases in seizures of cash, drugs, and weapons. violent crime has remained flat or falling in the past decade. cbp is developing an index that will represent what is happening at the border and allow us to better measure our progress there. i look forward to updating this committee. uscis continues to provide immigration benefits and services to those eligible in a timely manner by streamlining and modernizing its operations. we know war is required to address our immigration challenges. president obama is firm in its commitment to advancing

immigration reform, and i look forward to working with this committee and with the congress to achieve this goal, and to continue to set benchmarks for our success in the future. i like to thank this committee for its support of our mission to keep the united states safe. i want to thank the men and women who are working day and night to protect and defend our country, often at great personal risk. i'm happy to take your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you, madame secretary. all prosecutors have to make at least some decisions based upon resources. the state's attorney in vermont or an attorney general. we have to be realistic about

the situation we face. it will be impossible to deport all the immigrants in the united states who are undocumented. nobody is asking the government to redirect billions of dollars to try to remove 10 million individuals, even if you could. that is not an amnesty policy. not all people are going to be given the opportunity to work. dhs is still deporting record number of immigrants each year. over a million in this administration since taking office. so, let me ask you this. how does is discretion policy strengthen law-enforcement and border security? is it a good use of our federal resources? >> you have hit the nail on the

head. any prosecution office has finite resources. you have to set priorities. what has been a bit surprising is the reaction that somehow the prosecution memo that director was something new. if you go back, there is u.s. supreme court case law and there are memos from directors in both republican and democratic administrations, and makes common sense. so when look at the fact that there are 10 million or so illegal immigrants probably in the country, and the congress gives us the resources to remove approximately 400,000 per year, the question is, who are gone to prioritize? we want to prioritize those who are convicted criminals, those

who are egregious immigration and repeat violators, want to prioritize those who are security threats, those who have existing warrants. what you see happening now, particularly over the last year, it is that while the number, around 40,000, remains about the same, the composition of those with and that number -- the number, around 400,000, it is shipping to reflect the priorities we have said -- it is shifting to reflect the priorities we have set. >> a large number of the departure of agriculture people will check for invasive pests and plants , across our border and shifted to look for terrorists.

there was a colossal mistake. we find in a vase of pests -- we find in a vase of pests -- invasive pests -- local governments, almost $2 billion . we have to be concerned about that. we have a lot of things across our borders. these pests can cost taxpayers billions and billions of dollars a year plus irreparable damage. ipped in.slep they have thrown the quality of

supply.d some senators would like to see the inspectors returned to the usda. others say we should elevate agriculture mission within the border patrol. what should we do? how can -- what kind of a surges can you give us that the inspections needed -- the airports, the crossings, seaports, even rail is going to be done the way it should. this is a growing problem in the united states for these invasive pests. >> we have within cbp about 2000

agriculture specialists located at the ports of entry to search for exactly what you are suggesting, which are different kinds of pests, things that could wipe out entire crop very quickly should they take hold in the nine states -- in the united states. i don't have an opinion to express now on whether some of the agriculture department should take over this role, but i will say -- >> you would except the fact that it is an important -- >> absolutely. >> i hope you look to this carefully. i want to make sure we of the best people possible on that. i would not have the foggiest idea what to look for in plants,

but we have experts who do. whether the best people are, they should be doing that. the danger to this country is significant. >> i would agree, and the people who do are specially trained in this regard. >> the program is administered -- in vermont -- i am sure is the same as other states -- dairy farmers, apple growers who experienced difficult challenges within the department afraid we are'm maintaining something that is fundamentally unfair. i am not alone with my frustration.

a seasonal visa for a dairy farmer doesn't do them much good. "stand by, we'll be back in a few months to milk you." there was a bill to provide dairy farmers access to the program. we have introduced a similar bill. now, if i had my druthers, it would be to tackle immigration in a broad matter. it was somewhat too complicated. would you support this in a bipartisan effort to provide some basic fairness in the program for dairy farmers and sheepherders? >> with the caveat that we

always want to see the actual language. the answer is yes. we have had this dairy issue for a couple of years. our hands are tied until the law is changed. >> look at another thing. material support for terrorism. a case of refugees that sold flowers and give it bowl of rice to a terrorist organization. somebody gives a donation of the dollar is one thing. somebody gives hundreds of dollars is another. somebody who sells flowers to a terrorist is not providing support to terrorist. can we take a look at the interpretation of what is material support so that we're dealing with material support and not in material support -- and not immaterial support.

>> this is something that involves the department of justice. the answer is yes. i think we have been providing some clarification with respect to those who provide medicare -- medical care. so the answer is yes. >> i remember the old days of j. edgar hoover. the fbi would come running. there was a stolen car that was recovered. the recovered $10,000 in maybe a banged-up old ford. i do not want somebody that tries to make statistics a material thing. >> thank you, madame secretary,

for coming. i will ask you for some memos to you just referred to that previous administrations have exercise prosecutorial discretion, both republicans and -- both in a republican and democratic administration. i would like to of copies of those. >> these memos are referred to by date and author. we will give you copies of them. >> you announce the prosecutorial initiative focusing on the high party cases where you say the working group is still finalizing -- this committee needs some answers about what has been discussed and decided up to this point. we hear estimates of the

number of cases that could be reviewed. some say is up to 1 million. could you give us an estimate? >> referring to the master docket. roughly 300,000. >> ok. will those of final orders of removal be eligible for relief through this process? >> absent unusual circumstances, no. this is for cases of them are pending that are clogging up the docket and preventing us from getting to the higher-priority cases. >> some individuals who are given relief will obtained work authorizations so people with no right to be in the country will be allowed to work here. is that correct? >> since around 1986, there has

been a process where those who are technically unlawfully in the country may apply for work authorization. this goes -- those cases are case by byci cis on a case basis. there is no change in the process. that goes back to the mid 80's. >> some could have an opportunity to work even though they are here illegally. >> that happens now, senator. >> i would like to have those questions answered in a timely manner, please. we do that -- would you do that? >> i would be happy to. >> the number of work authorizations approved.

>> we will be happy to keep the committee staff apprised. i don't know what to me about real time. i think we can reach an agreement about how to keep the committee briefed. >> periodic updates. thank you. there's some discussion about giving one function to homeland security. " when security have final authority over visa policies. all of these applicants between 14 and 79 be interviewed in person with only a few limited exceptions. this was because 17 of the september 19, 1911 hijackers had visas without an interview. i'm concerned about attempts to do away with the in-person

interview. this is a september 10 mentality. do you think all visa applicants should be interviewed? we push back on an attempt by the department to roll back the in-person requirements? >> i need to look into that. we have our own people in many indices as visa security program officers who do separate security checks. i think we need to support that and look at that function because that is a check against many relevant databases. we need to do it at least on a risk basis. >> i have serious concerns about

the proposal outline of a moemo that was released last summer. i brought this issue up when the memo was released and fled to be an egregious option that would need to discuss. the authors suggest some people could apply and receive a waiver to stay in the united states and not be subject to the congressional mandate three and bars.ar a are you aware of any discussions? >> i think what you're putting your finger on it is the fact that the existing immigration what is very difficult. it is something that we would urge the congress to take a look at holistic play. we're ready to work with the

congress on that. might discussions have focused primarily on making sure -- my discussions have focused on making sure that we're prioritizing in a common-sense way consistent with what i've been informed this committee since i first became secretary. >> have you received any memo on the proposal? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> is such a memo would arrive at your desk, which reconsider its debt on its arrival -- would you consider it dead on arrival? >> i understand your concerns. >> you understand that congress needs to deal with it. that is my point of view. i mentioned former u.s. attorney in my opening statement. this is an issue i asked you

can't do you want to respond to in writing? have you any correspondence with mr. burke about that? >> no. >> so you did not talk with them. >> that is a different question. >> you have had some communication -- >> not about fast and furious. i went to arizona a few days fter to help look for the shooters. no one had done the forensics on the guns and fast and furious was not mentioned. i wanted to be sure that those responsible for his death were brought to justice that every doj resources was being brought to bear.

it would have been december of 2009 about the murder of agent terry. at that time, nobody knew about fast and furious. that is a different question. >> what -- have done things beyond what you just told me looking into the fast and furious? ifyou have a, that's ok -- you haven't, that is okay. >> i did ask ice to look into if there's any involvement there. we're waiting for the inspector general. >> one last question. i have concerns that this administration chooses to sue some states and turns a blind eye to places like cook county,

illinois. have you had any discussion with the department of just about suing cities or states over undocumented immigrants? have you had any contact with cook county about the ordinance? >> i have not had any communications myself with cook county. one of the key tools we're using to enforce the prairies we have set with respect to removals is the installation of certain secure communities throughout the country and jails and prisons. the huge majority of jurisdictions have no problem with this. we have been improving the system as we have been doing the installation. we intend and expect to be completed by the year 2013. >> thank you, madame secretary.

>> having removed the threat of 97,000 last year, your -- having removed 397,000, you are removing a lot. >> one of the biggest apartments in the united states government. i just want to say i think you're doing a very good job. i think the times are tough. i think leadership is very hard in this time. a lot of things are controversial. i just want you to know that you have my support and i want you to know that i want to do everything we can to prevent guns from going to mexico, because i know where they end up, and that is not good for anyone. i want to concentrate on two programs.

one of them is student visa fraud and the other is the visa waiver program. let me begin with student visa fraud. i got into this many years ago where there was a storefront school next to our san diego office. it turned out to be a phony university. essentially attracting people from abroad illegally to come to the united states on a student visa and then they disappeared. that was a long time ago. but it is still going on. as late as i believe in january of this year, there was tri- valley university which is in california which was authorized for 30 students and had some 1500.

it was really a scam. they collected up to 5% of the tuition -- each for national collective up to 5% of the tuition of any new student. there was profit sharing and visa fraud. today i understand that there are more than 10,500 schools approved by dhs to except not immigrant students and exchange visitors to study at their institutions through the student exchange visitor program. i am concerned about the number that have been turned out -- that turned out not to be operating for student purposes. my understanding is that an internal risk analysis determined that 417 schools have shown evidence of being a high risk school for fraud.

so here's the question. what type of enforcement measures have been brought to bear and initiated by the department to get at the high- risk schools? >> senator, i share your concern. we have increased the number of individuals who are looking at the program. these institutions -- tri-valley was one of the cases were brought to light. we're working with the department of justice to prosecute the perpetrators and tightening up the whole student visa program. i would be happy to send you a longer answer to all the efforts there, but i think i can say that this is a concern and we've been putting additional resources to it. >> universities that took the

students were not even verifying that they in fact were in the university. we had an agreement then to the university association that that would change. i suspect now that schools have so many financial problems that there may be an inclination to accept more foreign students who really do not turn up but pay a large amount of money. so i think it's a good thing to be under guard and i appreciate the fact you are. by other interest was in the visa waiver program. i believe -- my other interest. a number of illegal entries came in to the visa waiver program. if you come from a visa waiver country, you, and without a visa and are supposed to leave in six months.

we have had no exit system. we cannot tell who was leaving and who was staying. a new database system that is supposed to -- right, right. the electronic travel system -- a recent report identified several measures that you should take. i sent a letter to you dated august 15 requesting information on your efforts to implement the gao's recommendations. i'm not received a response. here's the question. what are the department's efforts to implement the gao recommendations to improve the visa waiver program? so that we know that someone who comes here at least when they're supposed to leave. is supposed to be a visitor program, not a permanent program because that is right.

i apologize that you don't have a response. --'ll get one fourth left forthwith. a lot of times there is a lag between day-to-day -- what is growing happening. as we have improved our systems and as we have been able to merge or develop search engines that can quickly search different data bases, the numbers have gone up, the czechs have gone up and we have developed a robust by graphic -- the checks have gone up. >> how many visa entrance are there a year -- visa waiver entrance? >> i did not have that number but it is a lot. >> show me the assessments that

you have pursuant to this data program of people not returning to their home country. i appreciate that. thank you. senator hatch. >> thank you. welcome. we are happy to have you here. immigration and customs enforcement officials conducted -- they included the facility does not meet the established ice detention standards. if they can no longer house 30 to 60 ice detainees. they claim ice mandates there detainees don't undergo a strip

searches, can't have a theremail ir mail read. the share said that is desperate treatment -- the sheriff said that is desperate treatment. what are the options in your opinion for local jails that are not able to comply with some of the more costlier attention standards? do you agree there is a role for some of these non compliant jails that are assisting ice officials? >> i have to look at this jail situation. we use water jails around the country. they have no problem complying -- we used a lot of jails. >> please look into that. it seems ridiculous to me. >> that doesn't sound completely accurate.

we'll take a look. >> i will appreciate that. as far as i know, they are humane. one recommendation is to create a visa exit program for foreign visitors in the united states. for determining whether foreign visitors are leaving the u.s., maintaining their visa status and and now awaiting future eligibility. not to mention the ability to track departures goes to the heart of keeping our nation safe. that is why they reintroduced the strengthening commitment to -- and american security act which would require the secretary to have a mandatory exit procedure. you have approached this to a degree today. without such exit procedures, the task in determining whether aliens have overstayed their visas and the united states

seems to me to be nearly impossible. it is my understanding since 2004, the department of homeland security has been testing various exit programs and the parcher controls at u.s. airports for a visa holders leaving the united states -- departure controls. and another program was conducted by dhs. yet, we have not seen implementation of exit procedures nor any final conclusions made by the department. at least i have not seen them. i prefer not to create an exit procedure legislatively but it seems like that may be the only way we get the results that we need. if technology is available to implement an exit procedure, why has since dhs acted on this? it has been over seven years since the first pilot program was completed. i guess my question is, how many more years do we have to wait until we get this going?

>> i think we have to distinguish between by electric -- biometric and a robust by a graphics system that combines data bases now we did not have two or three years ago. these are new developments. we have piloted biometric. it is very expensive. in these this kind i do not see how, unless congress gives us billions of dollars, we can install it. i think we can basically get to the same point of using the by graphic exit systems we are beginning to deploy. we have been able to go back -- and we started this project last spring -- and look at the back log of visa overstays. one thing we discovered using our enhanced system is about half of those people actually have left the country. now we have run the other half

against our priorities -- criminal convictions, recent border crossers, fugitives -- and that way we can prioritize ice operations on the overstays. >> i have been getting a lot of complaints lately about the checks as you pass through the monitoring stations, where people don't want to go through the x-ray station so they line up on the one side where it is just the open door -- were just the open door station is. and some of your people forced them to go through the x-ray station. and if they say, i don't want to do that, they say you can do it but then you will have to be patted down. my question they want me to ask is, why do you need a pat down if you go through the smaller

station? is that just a way of forcing them to go through the other? can't they have a choice? and give me the reason why a person cannot have his or her choice if they are just afraid of getting a shot of radiation or whatever it is they are afraid of? or they just don't like to go through that particular station? >> i can say the answer in one word, and that is abdulmutallab and others like him trying to bring explosives on the airplanes or of the material -- or other material that does not have a metal components and will not get picked up. that is why the pat down procedure has been adjusted to reflect that reality. we have been looking nationwide at how we can move people

through -- we have about 1.8 million passengers today in the u.s. air system. things we can do to make it easier for passengers to process through the system, we continue to look for ways. but the reason for that basic choice and where we are is the actual threat we are dealing with. >> why can't a person if they line up to go to the smaller station, why can't they just do that? why must they be forced to go to the other? >> i don't know about that. they usually have a choice. >> they don't, i am telling you. >> i will speak to the director. >> it seems to me that people ought to be able to use either one. admittedly, if somebody looks suspicious, you got to have that right to have them go through the more serious station, i guess. but the vast majority of people

are not suspicious at all. and i have just had a lot of complaints about that. >> i would be happy to look into both the weber county jail situation and those complaints and see. weeber? i apologize for that. it seems -- >> it seems ridiculous that they need to provide facilities they did not provide for regular people and yet they are a humane jail? >> i would like to work with the senior senator of utah on the issue he raises. you are absolutely right. most pilots will not go through the x-ray. i realize some former members of homeland security had lobbied -- have lobbied to get the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on these

things, most of which we probably don't want. maybe they feel they have to use it. but i have this set -- i have seen the exact same situation. members of my own family are cancer survivors and will not go through it and have to wait and wait. sometimes you get the impression the almost want to make you miss your airplane. children having to go through -- it is just -- when we hear others talk about it, it is almost this arrogant disregard for real americans who have to put up with this baloney. i realize the need for security, but it just -- i share the frustration is the center -- the

senator of utah has. >> my wife goes through a larger station -- i don't know how to refer to it. i lined up to go through that and i have been forced at least twice and i always comply. i never raise a fuss, nor would i. but it seems to me -- maybe i look like a terrorist. i don't know. but i don't think so. i am really very kind and loving. >> i do provide amusement of people -- for people taking cellphone pictures. there is a law against taking photographs -- of course, there is no such law. it is just one more example. we will go through it and do it and maybe miss your airplane because they are annoyed that you actually want to protect your rights. it is a shame because you have

some very nice people working at tsa. >> i do have a great crew working but i do appreciate the concerns. >> at the very top there is a disconnect with reality and there seems to being -- be -- >> i agree with that. your employees have been great and i will always comply with whatever they say. >> so do i.. >> i know you will, too. but there is a ridiculous nature sometimes. they have always been very gracious and nice to everybody -- >> i will continue to look into it and improve and we will work with you and looking to your complaints. i understand that and why people get concerned and frustrated when they travel. but i also think we have the safest aviation system in the

world, and there is a reason for that. senator, i will give you that. you look kind of loving and we should be able to handle this and also -- >> he usually is. understanding that the people who work there are some of the nicest i have met but i worry about some of the directions they get from the top are so unrelated to reality that it is frustrating. sometimes, yes. senator grassley reminded us of the risk federal law enforcement officials face. beginning of 200912 department homeland security law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty -- since 2009, 12 department homeland security law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty. a reminder that people in your

department put their lives on the line every single day for all of us here, including the tsa folks. senator schumer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me pay you a compliment to start off. secretary napolitano, i think your administration is doing -- i want to pay a compliment on immigration enforcement because your administration is the first really to take a rational approach to this issue and the statistics speak for themselves. you are using scarce enforcement resources to deport many more dangerous and plot -- criminals and focusing on making this a rather than causing disruption of economies and families to placate critics. in a great deal of sense when you have scarce resources, -- it makes a great deal of sense when you have been scarce resources to focus on criminals. i sent you a letter on april 14

to ask you to implement the changes. you are doing a good job. >> thank you, sir. >> now, a couple of questions. one is about the peace bridge on the buffalo-canada border, of great importance to the western new york economy. mail"terday's "globe and there was an article indicating there was a borders -- imminent border security agreement and it specifically quotes "the united states needs to find ways of expediting low risk cargo and travelers and focus resources on high risk traffic." know where is it more true than on those two bridges. they are respectively the third and fourth busiest commercial crossings in the nation, handling $30 billion of commerce between the u.s. and canada. but my office has been fielding lot of complaints from business

leaders, average citizens, about the length of time it takes for commercial traffic to enter the u.s. and canada. it is mainly because of the space on the new york side of the border is a very small. there is plenty of space on the canadian side. if we could do the inspections on the canadian side, it would be good. could you commit that as part of any future border deal with canada you would expedite commercial truck traffic to the united states from canada by prescreening the trucks on the canadian side of the bridge and this screening will begin soon? >> yes. >> great. no better answer than that. let's go on to our next one. it always pays to start off with a complement. [laughter] >> you can do that again, if you want. >> man attack threats -- nanotech threats.

this has been -- >> and if i might expand, i thought your question permitted a yes or no answer. but we really are very interested in how we can expedite the free flow of goods on both borders, northern and southern. and looking at ways where we can do pre-inspections, if not actual pre-clearance on the canadian side and facilitate that into some of the smaller areas on the u.s. side. you clearly got our attention. >> this is just what we need because you could have a whole lot of votes on the canadian side and you can't on the new york side because of geography. nanotech -- recent report highlighted an emerging threat. growing concern that universities with nano- technology researchers -- kennedy targeted with package bombs.

these same terrorists are linked to attacks and south america, canada, and europe, but it clearly have the ability to cross international borders. new york state is one of the leading nano-technology hubs. the albany region is probably number one in the country. at the moment it is my impression the department of homeless security is not participating in efforts to keep schools and other homes safe from attack. can you commit to working with and helping our new york universities and nano-technology hopes to detect and thwart threats? and is your department assisting the fbi to go after these groups? >> without commenting on investigations in an open settings, i will say that we are working with universities and schools across the country on a number of things to increase their security measures. >> we have not had that for the new york schools.

>> let me look into this, senator, and we will get back to you in terms of exactly what is going on. >> i am sure you will have no problem working with our new york schools to make them safer. good, thank you. finally, this is about fake i.d.'s from china. i wrote you a letter in august, you may remember, about companies in china that produced exact replicas of driver's licenses from various states for sale to people who might be terrorists, and illegal immigrants, or primarily underage teenagers trying to drink illegally. these licenses are very well done, with the bar code and everything else. very hard for the person at the bar or wherever else to actually detect they are false. sometimes you can detect it by a false address but they usually give and out of state address. if a new york bar in syracuse get a driver's license that says altoona, pennsylvania, he

has no idea there is no 123 elm street there. last week western union gave me good news by agreeing to work with the dhs to refuse payment to businesses whom you indicate -- when you indicate to them that are providing fake i.d.'s from china. this is the only way to cut it off, if they don't allow them to wire money, that is what they do. western union took a big step forward. he of the work is not done. these new false id's pose a major threat to the security of the u.s., as anyone on a no-fly wish -- list or terror list. a tsa agent who has the backlight is incapable -- not their fault -- is simply not capable of detecting whether these id's are real or fake. i am asking you to install, to begin installing integrated

electronic i.d. readers act tsa security points that can electronically scan and verify that the identification provided by an airline passenger in order to board a flight is indeed invalid identification. the reader should also electronically scan the name against terrorist list, no-fly list, etc. are we on a path to do this? what is happening? >> yes, we are on a path. there is an installation plan. part may be dependent on what we get in the fy 12 and 13 budget, but we are on a path to get these integrated readers. and a number of other things -- not just the detection of fraudulent documents, but the flip side is verification of actual identity. >> that's great. thank you for your very fine answers on every question i asked. >> thank you, senator.

>> senator durbin? >> see what, senator sessions. thank you, madam secretary. congress has dealt you and the president and impossible hand. the united states has a confusing, dysfunctional, and often cruel immigration system and you are charged with executing the laws associated with it. we all know as senators and americans that undocumented workers are an essential part of our economy -- from the fields and orchards of california, arizona, utah, and florida, to the meat and poultry plants of iowa, illinois, and across the midwest, to the major restaurants in washington, d.c., and chicago, we avert our eyes and pretend they are all legal. we know better. they are any essential part of our economy and yet there is this revulsion and negative

feeling about this and you are caught in the middle. you are given these laws and said to make it work. i think you are right to speak about the issue of prosecutorial discretion. every president and members of cabinet under the president have that responsibility, even recognized by the supreme court. i certainly think you are right on august 17 when you sent a letter saying dhs will review all pending deportation cases and cases involving criminals and threats to public safety will be given priority while low priority cases be closed, and many instances. you also said dhs would issue guidance to permit a low priority cases to be put in proceedings in the future. i appreciate your commitment in the process, but i am concerned. it has been four months the sense of the morton memo was issued and two months since you announced the process for implementing. the review of pending deportation cases -- correct me if i am wrong -- has not yet begun. in fact, we did not even know

what the criteria will be for the review. and you have not issued guidance as to who will be put in deportation proceedings in the future. when will your review of pending deportation cases begin? >> the review of pending deportation -- i think it is important to segregate cases coming into the system versus those on the master docket already. that is the 300,000 i was referring to with senator grassley earlier. that process and ball's not just dhs but the o.j. -- involves not just dhs but doj. there is a group working on how to accomplish that. my understanding is in the next few weeks they will begin piloting in certain districts the actual review, and i hope shortly thereafter to begin going through the master cases. the goal is to administratively

close some of the low priority cases so that we can facilitate handling the higher priority cases. in a way, trying to adjust the line in terms of who goes through. >> what is the time frame? >> i don't have an end time frame but i can share but you i expect a full review process -- the pilot will start in a few weeks. i would say two to three weeks. the pilot will not be one of these six months or 12 months pilots -- it will be to find logistical issues. so, we all want to move as quickly as possible once we identify it that we have the logistics' down. >> let me ask you this -- there are troubling reports there are ice and cdp field offices that announced the deportation priorities cannot apply to them.

is that true? >> if there are some, i would like to know about it. have personally spoken to the heads of the ice ero offices and the regional council. my understanding is they are very excited about having clear priorities, that the priorities are the right ones. the priorities, actually, i gave this committee in may of 2009. i said we are going to start moving the system so we can focus on criminal aliens. that is what we are doing. >> i would like to show the faces and tell the stories of three students who i believe most people would agree, having been brought to this country at a very early age, have made an amazing record in the short lives and they're being held

back from contributing to the united states. i certainly believe the president that secretary and your criteria of the right criteria. let us focus on removing those people who are a threat to our nation. that should be our highest priority. and it certainly would not include these college graduates desperate to go to work and make this a better nation. i hope you will continue on this line on an exhibition -- expedited basis. you may have seen and heard about the "front line" program that went into some detail about the immigration detention facilities. it focused on a number of them, but particularly one in texas. i learned a lot about -- they always do a great job -- but i learned about the situation as i followed this program, some 85% or 95% of those detained under civil charges, not criminal charges, do not have the benefit of counsel.

that the due process requirements are very limited on their behalf and that many times they are in facilities that are privatized, private businesses that are doing them and we do business with them. it has become a huge industry. i understand it is about $1.7 billion a year that your agency spent on these immigration detention facilities. there was an aspect of this program, though, that was particularly troubling. there was a woman who was a victim at this facility. she had been raped and her identity was hidden by the camera, and she told her story about how it was virtually impossible for her to even seek justice in this circumstance because she was totally at the mercy of the guards and is privatize the facility. i join with senator sessions and some of my other colleagues in passing the present rate elimination act in 2003 and i

thank senator session's leadership on this. we wanted to create a zero tolerance policy. the "frontline" the bus i was not the first we have heard troubling reports. -- the episode was not the first we have heard troubling reports. facts have been coming to light for 20 years. as a group, immigration detainees are especially volatile to abuse -- law vulnerable to abuse. and the often traumatic experiences they endured and their culture of origin. the commission issued proposed standards and the department of justice is now finalizing national standards. in april i wrote a letter to attorney general eric holder emphasizing the importance of strong standards. what is it the department of homeless security doing to ensure immigration detainees are

a -- free from the use -- abuse? >> when i took over we found there were little or no standard applied uniformly across all the detention facilities we use in the ice context. some of them are public jails, like weber county. others are privatized by companies like cca. we have to have beds, and particular given our priorities and how we are managing the system, we need beds that are near the southern border. we have, as part of that process, i brought in someone to actually look at standards and we redid our contracts with some of the providers. we do have a process by which we are regularly auditing and overseeing what is happening there. but that is not to say there are

not cases that are particularly horrific. we also have, senator, we tried to emphasize the availability of visas for those who are victims of crime, particularly victims of sexual crime and domestic violence. and we are trying to get out into the field the fact of the matter that the congress and the regulations to permit these visas. so, we will obviously review the documentary that was on last night and follow up appropriately and we will keep you posted. >> i am going to send you let our and i thank the committee for its patients. one last point -- and we spend annualized about $40,000 a year for each of these detainees when you figure $120 a day, which is the no. i am told. some are probably not that expensive. >> that is probably a good average. >> it is not that they are

charged with a crime. they are in for a civil offense. they have no benefit of counsel, 90%, limited command of english language and they are easily victimized. i think we have a responsibility to treat them humanely and fairly in deciduous and. might follow up letter will not only address this issue -- my follow letter will not only address the issue of protection from assault and rape but also those with mental disabilities. there was this awful case in san diego that was prosecuted or raised just a few years ago, where they had two individuals who suffered from serious mental ellis who had been in debt -- lost in the system for four years. what i read and learned a sense of the program last night and my study, there are totally inadequate facilities and staff.

from psychologists, psychologists, nurses, dentists. we have the responsibility to treat them humanely and i want to work with you to make sure it happens. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a criminal offense to enter the united states illegally. it is not a civil matter and we do provide health care for people who are captured entering the country illegally that needed, do we not? >> yes, we do. >> you've got someone entering the country and they have a health problem and we every and then and then we give them health care. i think in general, they are being treated well. and the few -- isn't it a fact under operations streamline, people are apprehended and

prosecuted through a misdemeanor, usually i understand, unless it is a repeat offense, are deported far less than a year's time? >> i think that is right, senator. i would have to concur. i think that is right. >> i think it is, except for people from distant lands that you have difficulty -- >> the country may not want to accept them. >> madam secretary, i am very concerned about the morale of our ice officers. i spent 15 years as a federal prosecutor working with customs officers and border patrol agents and others. you like to see them motivated, excited about their work, believing in their work, and they have to believe that the people at the top support them and believed in the mission they have been given.

there is a real problem with this. in june of last year, the ice union cast a unanimous vote of no-confidence in the director of immigration and customs enforcement and the assistant director of ice detention policy and planning. that was just last june. they found "senior vice leadership dedicates more time to campaigning for immigration reform in at large scale amnesty legislation than advising the american public and federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, the need for more manpower and resources within i east -- ice." they say they are currently overwhelmed with a massive criminal illegal alien problem in the united states. they go on to say -- this was in

2010 -- "ice is misleading the american public in regards to the effectiveness of criminal enforcement programs like this secure community programs and using it as a selling point to move forward on amnesty-related legislation." this is their statement. in june of this year they report in this release "union leaders say that sends the no- confidence vote was released, problems with an agency had increased." citing the latest discretion every memo as one example. "any american concerned about immigration needs to brace themselves for what is coming." said the president of the national ice council that represents 7000. it goes on to say that this is just one of the many policies

that is stopping the enforcement of u.s. immigration law in the united states. unable to pass the immigration law agenda -- agenda it is implementing it through agency policies. it goes on to note that while immigrants rights groups and others were involved in this policy, no input in these policies was received from the agency and its employees, which is one of the previous complaints they have had. first, are you concerned about this? for two years now it appears that the representative group for these officers have voted no confidence in your leadership. to what extent have you confronted this question, met with them, examined the charges that have been made and made a formal response to them?

>> let me, if i might, senator -- i, like you, have worked as a prosecutor for many years, particularly in border and immigration matters. i believe the priorities we have said is enhancing morale amongst our troops. i think results matter. and the results are really incontrovertible now. removing war criminals from the united states than at any prior time -- removing more criminals. with respect to priorities that have been set, when you actually read what director more news sent to his troops he refers in that document to a number of prior memos by prior directors that were in his or similar positions back in the old ins days, and the priorities that are very similar historical. that is because they make common sense and they reflect a reality

that we have never had an offer resources to remove everyone who is in the country illegally. and so, you've got to have priorities and give guidance to the field across the country about what the priorities are. >> i am just focusing mainly on the problems within the department. i am told by leaders of ice officers that morale is very low. they believe the new standards calling on them to consider a dream act-type issues in determining whether or not the person they have detained ought to be released not, whether they've got a high-school diploma, whether or not they might be a witness to a crime, that these are very confusing directives and it makes it more difficult for them to act effectively to apprehend people.

i is seed that you are looking very disdainful -- i see that you are looking very disdainful. i am saying these are people on the front lines. you have not been out there having to deal with the arrests every day. >> let the secretary answer the question. >> i say from me as a person who worked with federal agents for years, when you hear this kind of comment and a vote of no- confidence -- i have never heard of that -- you should be paying real attention to them and not rolling your eyes at this. >> i am not rolling my eyes. what i am suggesting is that results matter here and priorities really matter and that the results reflect the priorities we have set. and these are priorities that are consistent with prior administrations and, indeed, with what i testified to this committee my first months in

office. that this is what -- >> i am told that ice carried over from last year 19,000 removals and counting them this year and is sort of a gimmick for making their removal look higher than they are. are you aware of that? and i think what you are refering to, senator, is in the movement from fy 09 to fy 10, we made the decision we would not count it removal until there was an actual verify departure from the country. that had the affect of moving some removals from 2009 into 2010 because there was a calendar -- there was a removal order but we did not actually verify the departure into fy 10. we continue that practice into fy 11 so the comparison between the 10 and the 11 numbers are

exactly the same. >> what i am hearing is, is while claiming to arrest more criminal aliens, internal ice documents show that dhs leadership ordered field officers not to arrest fugitives in reentry and leadership efforts to conceal this from the public has led to confusion in the field. officers are afraid to arrest and suspected illegals have been aggressively pushing back, even showing agents the memo that you have when they stopped them, they showed the memo and says president obama says you can't arrest me. >> if they say that, they are not reading it correctly because that is exactly not the case. they can be arrested. but at some point and the process there need to be decisions made about who is to be removed -- at some point in the process. we talked about how much it cost to detain somebody.

it costs in the neighborhood of $23,000 to $30,000 to actually remove somebody. that is our cost. it does not include the justice department costs. congress gives us the ability to finance removal of 400,000 people year. we can just removed anybody without any priorities, and that would be one way to do it. or the other way, the better way, and probably the way you ran your office when you were a prosecutor is to say we want to focus on expediting the removal of those who are criminals, those who are fugitives, of those who are repeat violators, of those who are recent entrants, meaning within five years, into the united states. what you are now seeing is that of the numbers reflect those priorities. >> well, you have a problem with more rale and i am confident -- i think the officers feel like you spend more time talking with the

activist groups then the officers themselves and drafting guidelines to help them do their job. thank you, mr. chairman. sorry to run over. >> senator coons? >> thank you, madame secretary, for your testimony in front of this committee, for your discipline and determined leadership of this remarkably far-flung and brought agency. in difficult times it is a source of pleasure to see a fellow german scholar to do well. as other members of the committee have commented, you face enormous challenges and i want to commend you for the work you're doing given the limited resources and given the great pressures to keep america safe and to secure the borders and respect our constitution and advance our national interest. of the six prairie missionaries, there is one that has not been touched on a dog -- priority areas, there is one that has not

been touched on at all today. cyberspace. i was at a secure briefing that was hair raising -- probably not in my case -- about cyber attacks and the coordination between the intelligence community and dhs. recently a university of delaware instructor, actually the man who wrote "black hawk down" wrote a book that lays out a fairly disconcerting picture of a connection between the private sector and government and how we are cold war in meeting our defenses. -- coordinating our defenses. how you see your department coordinating with dob and the private sector to make sure we are sufficiently prepared for the assaults coming at us on a regular basis. >> i was just in new jersey yesterday meeting with a number of individuals in the private

sector, financial institutions sector, and the fbi on how we are, or needing -- coordinating. we really view ourselves, and i think the analysis is coming out, and i think legislation will come out, is that dhs will have the primary responsibility with the protection of dot-gov networks and the intersection with the private sector. and also through the sears service, crimes committed on the net. and also through ice. with respect to the protection of critical infrastructure networks, that is in our nppd division, we have a memorandum of agreement with the department of defense on this and we also have a memorandum with them as to how we can both utilize technological resources of the nsa. this is an area where, in my

judgment, we need to grow. i think we will have a continuing and expanding threat. there is not get any kind of international framework on which to hang our hats. and so, there are a lot of challenges. but it is definitely an area that we are moving forward on. >> thank you. two things, if i might. in your written testimony you referenced in number of very successful partnerships with local law enforcement, local communities, the nationwide suspicious activity reporting initiative. what do you see as the future role for local law enforcement, for local first responder communities, and frankly, for the national guard and reserve in providing some of the first points of contact and a trained work force to help provide the source of security for infrastructure, local communities, and local government, as we build out

toward the future or you are literally policing and online border? >> we are still discussing this and discussing it with our local and private sector partners. but i think this will be a unique area for the fusions centers to help. they are designed as an all- hazards colocation center. i think all of them now have access to real-time classified information. i think through the fusion sensors we can expand our local and private sector reach into this cyber arena. >> one of my larger concerns about cybersecurity long-term is the protection of american intellectual property. and number of more egregious intrusions, not just to access banking or financial data or steel identities for financial gain but also download and a very large quantities of

american innovation and invention. i just wanted to point out to you and number of initiatives folks on this committee are taking and hope to work with you and your department in making sure the legal infrastructure be put together that makes sense and is responsible. i am also particularly concerned about infringing shipments. my aunt -- my impression is there is ongoing challenges with customs and border controls that intercepts shipments it believes contains thomas of goods and whether they shared the affirmation probably what the rights holders to allow them to see whether it is counterfeit. some questions have been raised about whether it has the necessary authority to share information about suspected infringing shipments with the rights holders and whether they can successfully protect shipments in a timely way. i would be happy to follow up further with your office. >> let's do that.

>> last question, if i might. the immigrant investor visa program can be a real opportunity to attract to this country foreign nationals with significant resources who want to invest them in american companies or american communities. our state director of international trade has been trying to be successful. but the area's most successful has been through regional centers where they could aggregate significant numbers of applicants. it is hard to get clear information on which regional center models have had the greatest success. i wanted to leave with you a question about whether dhs might release more information about which regional centers and models have been more successful. >> yes, senator, i think we would be happy to have someone meet with the individual you referred to it and look across the country and see what is going on. >> i look forward to questions from my colleagues about the

visa programs and how we can help advance tourism in the united states. i think they're good opportunities as well as challenges. >> your colleague from minnesota, senator klobuchar. >> thank you, madame secretary, for the work you are doing every day. i want to mention two things i did not know have been discussed. first, the good work you have done in our area on flooding issues, that fema has done in the red river valley and the administrator's assistance with the floods was very much appreciated. the second piece of this is the work that i don't think many people focused on that you do, adoption. when things come up in helping parents adopt children from other countries and some of the issues. i wanted to know, the last hearing i ask you about a family from the philippines, senator sessions and senator inhofe and i worked to pass a bill to allow

older siblings if they turn 16 or 17 to still be adopted if they have a younger sibling adopted. this literally allowed 10,000 kids retroactively to come into loving homes in our country. one of them was a family that i brought up. thanks to the help of your agency -- they were going to have to leave the older kids that held this family together when the mother died and thanks to the help of your agency the two older kids were able to get on the plain what a family. i met all nine children and a celebration in the community and it would not have happened without the work of your agency. i wanted thank you for that. i am also on the commerce committee -- the first issue, aviation security. it has been my concern as a person with a hip replacement deals a lot with your tsa people, and there has been a great improvement in morrell the

past few years. they appreciate the local defense that you and the director had given when questions are raised. and obviously questions should be raised, but overall they are protecting the security of the people in this country doing incredibly difficult jobs. the issue i wanted to raise, the new stick image body scanner. that has been a concern of some people, with the new security that is there. i have not had a problem with it at all. i think it is great because it goes faster. but can you discuss this new software and get your assessment about how it has been working? >> we began installing software that rather than the smudge it photo-like image, it is just a stick figure, and it identifies where there may be an anomaly that requires deep they forgot to take something out of their pocket or something needs to be checked.

initially, when this was being deployed, i think in amsterdam, there were a lot of false positives. but those problems have been rectified so we are now in the process of installing that type of software throughout the country. >> what is happening with the pre-check pilot -- again, some pilots to speed things along? >> it is the name for the program that is a domestic version of global entry. it is the process by which people can voluntarily provide information and biometrics and that will help speed them through the security lines. obviously, one of the issues with the pilot is the scale ability -- scalability. but my initial impression is it is popular in people like it. >> senator coons mentioned the

tourism work. i chaired the subcommittee on commerce along with rory blunt and we introduce the tourism facilitation act, which we worked with the state department on these issues to make sure we were doing something that had a chance of passing. we have also seen some improvement. we are waiting to get the exact numbers from the consulate officers on the state department side. since 9/11 we lost 16% of the international tourism market, which is about 467,000 jobs. we want to keep all of the security measures in place. we also want to see if there are ways, while keeping them in place, to make them more efficient. even if we add one more point, that is 160,000 jobs in the country. they are gone nowhere else. they are in the country. the background checks for tourist visas, they are performed by the state

department but dhs does play a role when a tourist b-1 or b-2 visa holder applies for an extension. are you familiar with that and how can we make this run more smoothly? >> let me, if i might, look into that and perhaps have someone meet with you. it suggests there are some problems. let us figure that out. >> we don't want to change your security, but we really believe -- it is mostly consulate officers on the state department side, that you could process things faster and this is one thing that came up with the dhs side. >> as a former governor of a state heavily dependent on tourism, i appreciate the fact that this is a jobs issue. >> it is a really -- it is really a jobs issue. we have had no change in the last two years and there seems to be a lot of interest and making changes, so we are

excited. a lasting one to follow up on is cybersecurity. ice -- i shares senator coons' viewed that this is a public and private partnership. what more do you think we can do to encourage businesses and institutions to work with the government on cybersecurity challenges? >> i think this is one of the key issues congress will have to take up when it takes up hopefully cybersecurity legislation. but the extent to which particularly private business, that is, control a critical infrastructure of the country, should give notice if there has been an intrusion or attack, what kind of notice, how is it shared, what is the government's role, is it an incentive or mandate -- these are all things that are appropriate for congressional resolution. >> i think people were kind of shocked a few weeks ago or months ago when the one worker

working in a power grid -- >> southwest arizona. >> the power grid had gone down, affecting the power in people -- for people in southern california and other places. more has to be done to vertex the power grid. what should our priorities be? i am looking at this as a cybersecurity issue, but it was an accident. >> that was a situation where i think 6 million people were without power -- excuse me, 2 million people out of power for six hours because of an accident of one worker. i asked my staff to look at what happened and why there were not redundant or fail-safe systems in place. >> i also have a note that senator schumer -- discussing his buffalo bridge. i have a few questions that i did not know of other senators want to hear about concerning

northern minnesota but i will put them in the record and ask that she answered them at a later time. thank you. >> noting that the distinguished senator from minnesota -- it is not without precedent that sometimes questions that may appear to be parochial have actually been asked. [laughter] >> i think -- i appreciate their earlier answers and i know my colleague senator whitehouse is here. >> and i should know there has not been a single time where i called the secretary and have not been able to get a response. this is not a department we have a difficult time getting answers from. she is always available. senator whitehouse? >> your remarks about the cybersecurity legislation, that we ought to be and shall be

undertaking fairly soon makes a good segue into my questioning. let me first ask you, what level of urgency and dispatch would you advise that we proceed to this legislation with? >> i would hope that you would proceed as quickly. this is an area involving rapidly. i think having a basis in statued, of jurisdiction, authorization, and a light, is very important. work has been done on the senate side, work has been done on the house side. i would hope that congress could move very quickly to resolve this and give us a bill. >> do you hope that we can do it quickly because it -- what? >> this is an area that deserves

foundation in statute. right now we are moving administratively, and things are moving and moving expeditiously. but it does seem to me there is a lot happening here which ultimately needs to be established, not just jurisdictionally but fiscally as well so it is something congress has to take up. >> do you think that of the legislation that has been proposed, the idea proposed for allowing more protection, more government support, more protection of our critical infrastructure can be implemented quickly and will make a real difference in terms of the safety and security of the american people? >> i believe so. but i want to be frank with you, senator.

one of the areas where the department of homeland security needs to keep expanding its capacity and capability is in cyber. it is very difficult to hire professionals and this area. there is a lot of competition for these individuals. it is one of the reasons we initially made a decision that we would not tried to replicate a civilian nsa with a military nsa, that there will be arrangements to share some of the technological expertise. this is an area, even in a period of restraint fiscal resources, that needs focus. >> at the moment, if our nsa folks were aware of an attack targeting, say, an american bank, financial processing center, electric utility network, would they need, would

you need the kind of the authorities that this legislation can provide in order to be able to intervene and protect that civilian infrastructure? >> senator, it is hard for me to answer that hypothetical as posed. what i can say right now, with particularly the financial institution sector, we have a lot of cooperation. whether we have the authority of command and control in the event of an attack, no, that would be something that would need to be looked at legislatively. >> so, hypothetically, the government could be aware of an attack taking place but would be unable to do anything to head off that -- >> i am reluctant to answer the hypothetical as posed because my

experience over the last years as a secretary is that statue or no statute, we have worked things out. the world would be a better and more clear and focused place if we had a basic statute to work from. >> i will leave it at that. thank you, chairman. >> thank you. senator whitehouse has worked a great deal on this, and we are having a meeting this afternoon. we passed a bill out of this committee. there are other committees of intelligence and commerce and others that are involved. i think we have to do it. i am not as concerned -- obviously, i am concerned. we have to be. but i am not concerned now that somebody is going to try to hijack a passenger plane as much

as i am what happens when it is in the middle of the winter, ranging from 10 degrees above below zero and all of the power grids are shot off. you are talking about hundreds of thousands of people could die if they were shot off for a period of time. what happens if air traffic control is turned off? the huge, huge commercial disruption. plus, the very real possibility of loss of life depending on where the planes are and what the weather is. these are things that we have to look at -- communications. if the phones all go dead. we move trillions of dollars worth of commercial activities a day in this country and

overseas. these are things that we have to worry about. in the old days, you worry about somebody going in and being a bank robber. now they rob a bank 10,000 miles away and get a lot more money. >> it is not only the risks of cyber sabotage to our critical in the structure and finance and the electronic grid and communications, it is also the question of the private sector's intellectual property being stolen and siphoned out through the internet by some of our major international competitors in order to avoid either paying licensing fees to americans or to do their own research and

development, how much more easy it is to hack into a database and siphoned out of their trade secrets and rebuild a factory of your own. is being done by the terabytes -- is being done by the terabyte. we are doing awfully little about it. i hope to hear a stronger call from the secretary about the urgency of passing this legislation and the kind of change it can make if we get it passed. >> remember, a lot of these attacks are state-sponsored. a lot of people want to dance around that. some of them are state- sponsored. and that is a form of warfare.

>> i just want to clarify, senator, i hope my answer did not suggest that we view this as urgent legislation. we do. the department has participated briefings. we have participated heavily in the drafting of the legislation. we obviously believe there is an urgent need for the legislation. i was interpreting your question as to what are you doing now and how you getting by. the fact of the matter is, our authorities, our jurisdiction, and moving forward, the past would be much more clear, and there is an urgent need for legislation in this regard. i am hopeful that both chambers have been addressing this that this is one area where the congress is able to move. >> it did sound a bit tepid.

i appreciate you clarifying your remarks. >> you bet. >> i understand that we have votes here really soon, so we will wrap this up. i will have questions for you about this task force. i want to have a written response. i asked you previously how dhs are arrests and detains with ice. i would like statistics on all u.s. citizens arrested under secure communities, the duration of their custody, and the resolution of these cases. so, i think you very much. would you like to add anything else? >> no, mr. chairman. i have enjoyed being a witness today. >> i am sure.

thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> senators will be returning to the floor for a couple of votes in the u.s. senate. they have been debating a bill for spending for 2012 for several agencies.

they have a vote on a judicial nomination and also an amendment by john mccain which would eliminate a requirement for states to spend a certain percentage of highway funding for beautification projects. that is on c-span2. in just under an hour, we will take you to the national press club. we will hear from grammy award- winning singer natalie cole. we will have her remarks live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. later back at the senate side, a committee looking at the issue of concussions in sports for athletes and their parents. one member has asked the federal trade commission to investigate misleading claims and deceptive practices by equipment makers who claim their helmets reduce concussions.

that is coming up today at 2:30 p.m. eastern. live at the national press club coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern. host: what was the biggest surprise last night? guest: all of the drum up. i would say rick perry's performance was a surprise to me. i did not think he performed well last night. i keep waiting as an observer for rick perry to all the sudden dazzle us with his ability as a speaker. there were things he said last night that i could not understand. i was totally sober. his explanation for why he did

not agree with the preacher who attacked more menacing as a cult -- attacked mormomism as a cult. that is a problem for rick perry, i would save. host: herman cain? guest: he is a compelling figure. i like him. herman cain deserves credit from my point of view for saying things that are specific. on the other hand, in one sentence, literally, he explained that, yes, he would be willing to negotiate with al- qaeda if they were holding a u.s. hostage, but he would never negotiate with terrorists. this is a problem of not running for a high office before because you are not prepared for every question. host: one of the things that is

talked about a lot in the papers was the exchange between governor mitt romney and rick perry hall gov. mitt romney responded to that. let's show it and get your take. >> those people that hire illegals ought to be penalized. you lose all of your standing because you hired illegal in yours home and you knew about it for a year. the idea that you stand before us and talk about you are strong on immigration is on its face the hype of hypocrisy. >> rick, i do not think i have ever hired an illegal in my life. rick, again -- i am speaking. i am speaking. you get 30 seconds. this is the way the rules work. i get 60 seconds, and then you

get 30 seconds to respond. >> you knew -- >> are you going to keep talking? are you going to let me finish what i have to say? these are a couple of tossed debates -- of tough debates for rick. >> you put in place a magnet to draw illegals in this state, which is giving $100,000 of tuition credit to its legals to come in this country -- to illegals to come into this country. texas has had a 60% increase in an illegal immigrants. if someone has a record as governor that does not stand out, it is u. not me.

guest: on his last point, there is a war going on in mexico. clearly, that is driving some of the immigration in texas. what a dum exchangedb . rick perry says -- what a dumb exchange. we all shall -- we all fall short of our ideals. that has nothing to do with his policy or his ideas, so he has this profoundly dumb gotcha moment. "you do not know the rules." is like back handing him. clearly, they have paid a bunch of mitt romney people to jump in. unimpressive colloquy in every possible way. that was just not an exchange

that made you want to vote for either one of them. host: if you want to ask our guest questions -- e-mail as well as twitter. we have gone through a series of these. what do these candidates have to do to solidify their appeals to their base? guest: i think the way this system works -- by the way, i support this complete. i know there are a lot of ting.licans fret andtin but the truth is, the republican party, being the way that it is,

it is mitt romney's nomination to lose. the money is swinging behind him right now. so, really, the job for every other is to be the guy that can challenge him. its seems to me based on last night performances that newt gingrich, written off by all the smart people, has a shot of being the anti-mitt romney for the next month or so. why not? i think it's pretty hard for rick perry and herman cain to the elected president at this point. clearly, he is smarter than everybody else in the room. host: does he have to show the support to be that guy? guest: key is not taken seriously at all because of the -- he is not taken seriously at all. he is a prickly character.

he is a flat-out interesting person who is not going to turn and say, "you hired an illegal immigrant." if i was giving a lecture to schoolchildren of about seven -- about smoking cigarettes, would that be a dispositive case against my argument? my larger view is different. that is fair. anybody who makes so-called arguments like bass discredits himself. -- like that discredits himself. host: florida, you are up first. good morning. caller: i never read your guest, but i have to agree what he said about mr. rick perry. he does not make any sense

whatsoever. i could not fathom anything that he said. and attacking the other gentleman for being more men he -- for being mormon, he was right. religion does not have anything to do with being the president of the united states. we should all be included in the discussion. this is an important election coming up. none of these candidates -- it was like a circus. it was more like a circus. thank you very much. guest: i think a couple of the other candidates made not exactly the case that you describe but made a pretty compelling case for not judging mitt romney's religion. they said values were important if you belonged to the aryan nation or something, i think it is fair to say your values are

inconsistent with america's about use. as for the taxation, your theology on a granular level, that is out of bounds. at least for the purposes of the presidential race. i thought they did a pretty good job, particularly rick santorum expanding the role publicly. host: the washington post asked people to connect words with the candidates, and mormon came up many times. guest: clearly, it is not a popular religion it -- a popular religion with a lot of people. will people hold it against mitt romney? no. never seen a poll that suggests his personal faith will be a factor in voters minds.

you know, have you ever dealt with mormons? they are really nice. i have never been mugged by a mormon. they are nice people. why would i hold that against them? jones fell, go ahead. e never i own -- i'v heard rick perry say anything bad about the mormon faith. obama was a very good speaker. that is why everybody attached to him. mitt romney created [unintelligible] fox news is getting critical.

i wish you would go back and show that mitt romney created health care and was against obama [unintelligible] apologize to obama for supporting mitt romney. rick perry was first. if you have a job, you better vote for rick. . i am telling you. anybody supporting mitt romney i think is very wrong. guest: all right. kind of hard to argue with the facts that you laid out. everything you said as i can tell is factually true. mitt romney has not been consistently conservative. you are right that simply because you are eloquent means you are good at running the

country. however, you still have to be able to articulate what you believe in and white. that is the nature of the presidency. -- believe in and why. that is the nature of the presidency. the ability to win people over to your side is central to being president. i would say on the question of mitt romney's liberalism, very distressing to watch him and other candidates last night attack herman cain's 9-9-9 plan, which is flawed in many ways. more to the point, they kept making the same case that herman cain's plan is bad because it would increase the burden on the middle-class. the truth is the middle-class pays actually a very small share

of the tax burden. rich people pretty much paid for everything. i know we are not allowed to say that, but that is just mathematically true. we never say that. the bulk of the votes are in the middle class. host: here is a bit of exchange about the plan last night. >> are you saying that the sales tax would go away? >> no. that's an apple. we are replacing a bunch of oranges. >> will the people of nevada and not have to pay nevada sales tax and in addition pay the 9% sales tax? >> you are mixing apples and oranges. you are going to pay the state sales tax no matter what. whether you throw out the existing code and put in our plan, you are still going to pay that. it is apples and oranges.

>> and i am going to be getting a bushel basket with both apples and oranges because i am going to be paying both taxes and. guest: herman cain was overwhelmed by the demagoguery of mitt romney in that exchange. the folks in this state are going to have to pay those taxes. of course. every person pays federal and state taxes. but wait. about half the country does not pay federal income taxes because this is such a graduated system that people in the top 20% pay the overwhelming majority of all the taxes. and the money is spent -- where does it go? why are we index? medicare and social security. so, anybody who stands out with a straight face and says the

middle class's tax burden is too high -- that person is lying. it is fine to lie to people in good times because we can afford to lie to ourselves, but we are getting to the point where we cannot afford to not tell the truth about where the money goes and how to fix. host: our next call is from upper marlboro, md.. caller: good morning. i must admit first that i did not catch all the data, just a couple of clips, listening to a lot of the reports this morning. i have to tell you that the democrats are really knee- slapping laughing at all of these guys. no one will be able to hold a candle to obama in the election. you really are just hearing the same old talking points over and over. what all of these candidates are missing as well as the

republican machine at large is that there is a large solid majority of the country that really feels that whatever side you fall on, right or left, you really have to run this country by a compromise. i do not think the media is really getting that point or reporting it well. i do not think congress is getting it. i do not think any candidate running on the ticket of "let me just follow every extreme of the far right" is going to win in the general election. regardless of your opinion of president obama's policies, i do not agree with him on everything but i will vote for him again because i feel like he makes an effort to draw things to the center. i think the center is where the future of this voting bloc of the nation is and where people

want to see our leaders in the center. guest: i do not think there is any evidence that the president has worked hard to bring the debate to the center. i think in the next year you will be here the president demonize his opponent personally. that is inevitable. i think you will see him continue to play a cultural war because he does not have anything to run on. i find it distressing that the republicans do not seem capable of producing a candidate who can articulate a clear concise case against president obama. i think the president is beatable. i think a lot of candidates are looking at this process and saying bring us some one great to we can beat obama. in the absence of a good candidate, the incumbent gets reelected.

being an incumbent is a pretty good deal. host: who is the closest? guest: i do not know. i am pretty darn conservative i guess, so i am always sympathetic to the candidates who are maybe less mainstream. but, again, i think the republican party is still an institutional party, respecting its elders, less so than the tea party movement, but it will be hard to unseat mitt romney. here i am pretending knowing what i am talking about. there is so much volatility and just beneath the surface in american life that if there was ever a year where something truly weird happened where obama stepped down and another ran for the democrat and donald trump became the republican nominee, unlikely, but this is the year

for it to beat. host: to block caller's point about going to the center, this column says -- guest: "the need for stability." john huntsman is one of the few candidates that i do not know personally. he hired one of the domestic campaign managers who had him sending tweets. you may agree with that, but if you do, you are an npr-lsitening liberal. he has run this campaign almost designed to make right winers mad, which is a very unhelpful

strategy. host: arlington, va., patrick is on our republican line. caller: i have to agree with you about newt gingrich. man, this guy is impressive. not only does he have the background of balancing the budget, but this guy is articulate and he has ideas. he did a great job last night. i want to get tucker's take -- first of all, i do think herman cain's plan is uniform, and that is what the constitution calls for, article 1 section 8. howl all taxes shall be uniformed. plan hink herman cain's does meet the criteria, but what i want to talk about is what about reflected trade tax, where

imports and exports between china and the united states equal themselves? where we actually attacks their imports what they tax our exports? guest: and a lot of people would be for a system like that. it is a complicated question. trade imbalances constitute a mixed blessing because they clearly undermined american manufacturing. it is too late to revive that any way. that has been a sad downside of our trade imbalance. they also provide a lot of inexpensive goods to people who would not be able to afford them otherwise. there is income disparity i think in this country. you often hear that middle- class wages are stagnant. buying power has increased because goods are cheaper. if you remember, 30 years ago,

people made born choose from concentrate and they did not have five tvs in their house, etc. goods are cheaper. i do not know. it is a mixed blessing. host: the financial times has a piece looking at the top republican candidates and showing sources where they are getting campaign money. mitt romney coming in at about $7.5 million. barack obama, $3.9 million. herman cain, $129,000. that money coming into their campaigns and influencing their policy. guest: i cannot believe anybody from the insurance industry gave money to barack obama. if you singled out in industry for abuse and likened them to basically saying -- forcing them to sell their products to people

who did take -- who they did not want to sell the two, how could you reward the guy with campaign donations? people sniff out the throne no matter how poorly you treat them. obama is going to get less support from wall street, no question. keep in mind. obama won voters making over $200,000 in 2008. will that happen again? there are a lot of guilty rich people, but fewer than they were three years ago. caller: hello. good to see you. i remember you from the crossfire days. it was entertaining and a great blood pressure brewster. guest: thank you. caller: there are a lot of things i could talk to you about, but let's first go with texas.

you say that poor people do not pay any taxes. there is 100 million americans who pay gasoline tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, tolls, other excise taxes, property taxes, estate taxes. so you add all that up, how much too rich people pay in those taxes? where is the study that says exactly how much rich people pay? you are complaining that it you take all of the rich people's money, it does not cover the tab. where do you think all of that money is coming from? it is coming from the 100 million people that really pay the taxes. it is not the top 1%. it is not a political fight. you come to a conclusion based on evidence. i will see what you have to say. thank you. guest: i am not sure i can

address your point about science because i do not understand your point about it. i am going to leave that unaddressed. i was pointing to federal income taxes which about half of the country does not pay pending the government at all levels hit you in a million different ways with user fees and all kinds taxes that you cannot get out of. there are a lot of benefits, so i think about half of the country, about 50% as is right now, receives more in federal money and it lays out in federal money. about half the country is net dependent on the government. that is a striking statistic to me because when you receive more than you put in you really do not -- that has implications for how we elect people and who we elect. i think it is a really ominous

sign. i am against the graduated income tax. i will say 8. i did not inherit a lot of money. i always get e-mails about that. i have a moral problem with. we are all citizens and we all want to pay the same rate. why should one new popular minority group -- i do not take money from them, why should one new popular minority group shoulder a disproportionate burden? i think it is wrong. host: the wall street journal takes a look at senate 2012 politics, highlighting the campaign of joe manchen in west virginia come sayin, saying -- guest: it is actually a gray reat piece.

there is a number of author suddenly pretty moderate democrats and the senate. joe manchen is about as conservative as you can be as a democrat. he seems like a good guy. i would say that piece may overdraw a little bit. he spends a lot of time distancing himself from obama. we need more guns and political ads. but on the first vote to repeal obamacare which was an important vote to the white house, he was on obama's site. if you look at voting records distinct from the cosmetic manifestations, a lot of these democrats are still faithful democrats. n nelson would have been

reelected up and until his death if he did not get fouled up by the obamacare nonsense and the shake-up or whatever they were calling it, that vote and that controversy about the payoff that he accepted from the white house makes it likely that he will get reelected. it is a shame because i think he is a good guy and i know him. you want and i want a moderate democrat. you have to have some compromise. not everyone can be a hard-core ideologue. it is good to have some people in the middle. increasingly, they are losing. host: what about moderate conservatives? guest: there is no question. in this race in this year, whoever is going to challenge

barack obama need to get the ratification of, win the votes of republican primary voters. they do not like obama and they are pretty darn conservative, so it does not make sense to give them the finger. john weaver running this campaign does not get that. that is politics 101. all of my prognostication is for naught. i thought hillary clinton was going to get the nomination. i lose money every year. i do think the democrats are going to lose control of the senate. three to five. for some of these candidates, it is hard for them to hang on because of the nature of their states. these states have moved a lot since 2008. host: ben on our republican

. caller: glad to see you on there, tucker. my comment was about herman cain is not electable. i like the 9-9-9 plan because that would bring in all of the drug money, the pins, the hookers. number two, bush was a moderate. the two most expensive things he did it were drug prescriptions for the elderly and tarp, bailing out the banks. republicans cannot afford to send another rick-mitt romney moderate. moderates have gotten us where we're at. guest: i thought the prescription drug program was pretty radical, a huge expansion of federal entitlement.

and, again, that is not moderate. that is radical. it is not a baby step. it is a leap to the left. bush never got the credit he deserved for that bank in the white house hammered locked all of these republicans for voting for 8. -- bush never got the credit he deserved for that. the white house hammerlocked all of these republicans for voting for it. it is a major blot on bush's record. host: warrenton -- warrenton, virginia. caller: good morning. of the problem with these debates is you have a bunch of politicians that get together and all they want to do is it denigrate each other. they do not want to find solutions to the issues. if they wanted to do that, --

you were talking about social security and medicaid. i agree with you. my problem is a that is my money and i would like to have it back. guest: a lot of people feel that way, for sure. that is the central problem with the program. of course, all of us do pay a to the payroll taxes. look, if it was simply a case of putting money into an account to draw against if you get old or sick, the system would be solvent, but that is not the case at all. it is not all that simple. they are popular and they benefit not poor people but the middle class, but that is exactly what they are. if you say that, people will

freak out. these are highly popular programs. of ghent, that is why they are so expensive. -- that is what they are so expensive. eliminating or paring down or even controlling the growth of middle-class entitlement programs which are driving us to insolvency and strengthening china, that is apparently beyond the power of any politician i have ever met. host: this off of twitter, asking -- guest: such an awesome talking point. it ought to be a bumper stickert. look at the last 10 years. what have you noticed? have you noticed a massive drop in revenue coming in tax

revenues? or do you notice a radical increase in government spending? it is the latter. i do not think anyone argues that tax increases are stimulative if people are out of work, suffering, and raising taxes. even john maynard keynes made the issue about this. we raised a lot of money. we just spend more. host: michigan, cavan is on our republican line. caller: when i want to tell you that i appreciate your show. i think a problem that the republican party has had for a long time is that they are not able to clearly designed conservatism and why it works better in the political system than liberalism. we keep putting up moderates who

have the tendency to adopt liberal ideas. clean energy is 1. college for illegal aliens is another. we put up these candidates who are trying to create a hybrid of ideas, and if it does not work out. i really think that the duty of ronald reagan was that he was able to clearly define what conservatism was and why it worked and why it was a better system. i believe if we can get a candidate to do that, we will win the next election. guest: conservatism is a tougher sell than liberalism. who does not want to accept free help? it is free nature. conservatism is an intellectual case and that is a much harder thing to sell.

"wait, slowdown. do not just do something and stan there. wait until tomorrow. put off instant gratification for long-term rewards." is a case that you have to make. it does not come intuitively. you need someone articulate who is able of doing that. host: birmingham, alabama, our democrats' line. caller: good morning. and the disrespect that you have for poor people. it is sarcasm. have you seen poverty in america right now? it is so sad how many people are living in poverty right now. it is not because of barack obama. it is because this has been coming for a long time. i do not like to think that you

just dismiss poor people and that they do not vote. that breaks my heart. america has had to go through so much to even be able to vote. guest: i was not attacking poor people at all. i was saying it is pretty easy to strip poor people of their benefits because they are not a powerful voice in american politics. i was on your side, about barack obama cannot be held responsible for anything because he is jesus -- that is between you and your pastor. the fiscal problems that we have is a result of pandering to the middle-class -- me, you, right? to the middle class, to the bulk of americans that have been told again and again and again by both parties that you are under assault, we are going to protect you. politicians have raised the

expectations to heights that are unsustainable. host: the president said there were similar themes happening when comparing the occupy wall street protests to those of the tea party. as you look at curly what is going on, what do you think of the argument -- as you look at what is going on, what do you think of the argument? guest: i hate whining. oh, be quiet. shopping network. i cannot stand to hear another over-fed american whine. i am very sympathetic to the aims of the tea party. i do not think they are the same, but the impulse to get out there and rather go to work and live your life, to get out on the street and waved a sign, i just reject that. i have covered hundreds of protests.

don't these people have jobs? how can you complain that you are poor if you are not working and standing in the street and yelling at people? that does not prosperity make on either side. host: one more call from lisa. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i would like to say i am on disability, medicare. and i would like to know the jobs bill that [no audio] host: she was trying to address the jobs bill. guest: there is no support on the hill. it has almost no support from democrats. the white house knew from day one that is never had a possibility of passing. last week, there was not one

democratic co-sponsor of the house version. not one. this has nothing to do with taxing laws on the hill which is right next to us and has everything to do with the president making a case for his reelection, that republicans are mean and probably racist and against me for their own irrational reasons. no one takes it seriously. host: tell our viewers about " the daily call their." guest: you can find it at thedailycaller.com. i just want to thank the microsoft corporation for making spelling really easy for me. we have got dozens and dozens of reporters that are constantly updating the site. there is new content every seven minutes or something. it is one of the largest news sites on the web. host: and your front page

dealing with last night's debate. guest: i have to get on a conference call to see what they thought. host: thank you very much. >> and about 10 minutes, we will take you live from the national press club to a year from natalie cole who will be speaking about hepatitis c.. she was diagnosed with the disease in 2008. until then come back to this morning's "washington journal." host: president obama and praised the frustration on the street and said in an exclusive interview with abc news that his vision for this system is best suited to resolve the

let's see what he had to say. >> i understand the frustrations that are being expressed in those protests. in some ways, the day are not that different from some of the protests -- they are not that different from some of the protests coming from the tea party, both on the right and the left. i think people feel separated from their government. the field their institutions are not looking out for them. host: getting your thoughts on it, the differences between the two rallies. 81 to participate, all you have to do is -- if you want to participate, all you have to do is pick the line. let me give you the numbers one more time.

you may want to reach us on e- mail. that address is -- or if you want to send us a tweet this morning -- you have to go to twitter.com to start the process. let's go to phone calls. steve, what do you think about the president's statement that there are not that much difference is? caller: yes, sir. president obama is the internal law diplomat. i am sure he is going to make a comment like that. of course, there are differences. what i noticed with the tea party -- first of all, these are

wall street protests look like america. you see black people, asians, hispanics, the whole spectrum of americans. with the tea party, it is predominantly whites. that is one difference right there. as far as the ideology, the tea party sprung up almost immediately after the election of president obama. they were just looking for anything to oppose him on. they so happened to hinge on this so-called bailout. when the banks were failing, we were going to go under and something had to be done. the dishonesty of the republicans is outstanding -- astounding. . host: ryan, a supporter of the

tea party. good morning. caller: how are you doing? i am coming at it from maybe a little different method than most tea party supporters. i support most of them because this country was founded on the constitution. we should really be -- we believe completely, 100% in the constitution. race is not where we are coming from. that is not a factor in the tea party at all. host: are there differences between the two protests? caller: yes. the occupy wall street people are functioning on a portion of the constitution. not the whole constitution. they take a portion and make it

work toward their efforts. we used the whole constitution and are looking for all americans including the occupied protest people. host: this westminster, md., wayne. caller: good morning. i think the current tea party has one thing in common. the original ones mask themselves as indians, and the current ones mask themselves as patriots, when these are the

very same people that brought hitler to power. and they were so much into the constitution and saving the taxpayer money and everything. where were they when bush lied the country into war? spent $3 billion on a war in iraq that was totally on false pretences? where were they then? they are all for the torture of p.o.w.'s. and they are all for the contracts -- host: we will leave the there. carl, online for those who support the tea party. caller: the problem is how many flags do you see?

how many american flags do you see in the news reports? how many times do people have to realize that the communists and the unions are behind this? the socialists are behind this. when obama comes out and says he backs this particular protest, what does that say about our president? is he a communist or socialist? we need to determine what is going on in this country and change it. he was all for change. host: the president yesterday during the interview talked specifically to the occupy wall street supporters, saying that the most important thing he could do as president is express solidarity with the protesters and achieve what he calls and more egalitarian society. --

again, for our first 45 minutes, the president is calling the rallies that you see curly and comparing them with the tea party, saying they are not that different in nature. we want to get your sense on whether that is true or not and tell us why. union city, new jersey, the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. there is just so much polarization. for one thing, they are both american citizens. they are practicing their right

to make a difference pimping nobody is throwing molotov cocktails or doing anything -- to make a difference. nobody is throwing molotov cocktails or doing anything. back-and-forth. we have to be in this together. there are more people killed in chicago, our poor children in the streets, then afghanistan. it is so obvious. maybe it is something i do not know. host: do you think both groups are sending a similar message? caller: that would be impossible i think because -- i am 53 years old. my mother is 87 years old. they worked so hard and things were different. things were easier for certain people, because race is a factor. factor.