.

>> they can still stay in line. the way many of millions people do. you can start getting jobs. buy a foreclosed house. whatever it is you want to do. the airlines would love to sell a lot of tickets to go home. for those who want to come here and work, the need to have some very realistic, non-partisans " does set -- quotas set. all the kinds of things that make them very employable.

the can opener security account with the internal revenue service. the old mantra used to be that employers are more afraid of the irs the men are the ins. it is true. what they can do really well as open an account, a name, and to do debit and credit into that account. almost all of our large employers, at least, use a completely computerized payroll service. once you come and a sign on as an employee, you're in a program were 10% of your gross is deposited into that account. at the end of the 24 months or whenever we will come up with, you take that money home. it goes into the lowest end of the economy in the descending country.

no government officials are involved. it is a bounty on your head instead of us pay for the activities. paying for noncompliance. this completes the first economic incentive to comply with the terms of the visa. employers would have a stable, predictable system. but can work on both sides of the border. -- and they can work on both sides of the border. employers like to see a stable system they can count on. homeland security personnel would be free to look for terrorists. i've given testimony to various committees across the last decade. until we document and move the migration back to the port of entry in an orderly fashion, dhs

has a job they cannot do, actually. when the visa expires and the migrant sends the money home, i mentioned that. i was reading a slide ahead. i apologize. when all of that is accomplished, we would have an increase in national security. that is one of our goals. basic rights to be extended since people have to have the right to be present. they could complain to authorities are law enforcement to initiate suits. migrants would share more of the costs of participating in our system. that is fair. that is the way our citizens do it. cartel revenues would drop dramatically. that is a very significant concern where i hang out. i go places where folks will not go in more -- in northern mexico.

i am telling you. we need to change the language. they do not use the word cartel. they use the word mafia. they watch the tv and they understand a word. the new policy results i want to see, migrants would be using public transportation coming to the port of entry. revenues of the cartel or mafia would decline. families would be in tact. employers would not have to navigate the system. human rights could be expending. i had to throw in one shot here. sorry to offend you. this is martin gomez. i found this beauty queen in guatemala in the desert. if she had been cooking out there in 42 days. that is an open rib cage you're looking at. the pants are expended because in the heat it is nullified,

carnivores cannot get through the blue jeans. we use this a photo with permission from her family and her fiance that she was coming to hook up with an oakland. because, they say, they want to encourage people to quit doing this. this stuff does matter. i simply want to say what is up there on the subhead -- debt is about a permanent part of the united states public policy in migration. -- death is now a permanent part of the united states public policy and migration. i have had the argument. we are not choosing that. you could tell that in 1998. maybe in 2000. but when you have the exact same results year after year after year and to spend no new resources to produce -- to reduce the number of migrant debts, it is now public policy. when you damn the organizations

that are out there working to reduce the number of deaths, then you have said that is acceptable. debt is now a permanent part of the public policy -- death is now a permanent part of the public policy to deter migration. that, my friends, is immoral. it should not happen. let me just point out, there has been more than 2000 documented, measured, located death dots in arizona since november of 1999. some of those dots are on top of dtos. -- on top of dots. homeland security provided certain amount of information that about 70% of deaths in the

last decade or so were found by other officials or the general public. they treated these maps and so forth. i will conclude by saying the following. it only precludes a stunning lack of imagination. we can do this in a very different way. we have to do this primarily through politics first. policy changes first. there is no such thing as achieving operational control of the border -- it does not exist. only a bipartisan solution will address these issues. that concludes my presentation. thank you. [applause] >> ok. and the final speaker is from princeton university.

>> i could have had pictures, but i do not. if you wanted to design a dysfunctional immigration policy, you could not do better than what we have had over the past several decades. undocumented migration, illegal migration, whenever you want to college, is not a global phenomenon. it is a regional phenomenon. 50% of all illegal immigrants are mexican and another 20% are central american. big countries like india or china are under 1%. it is a regional phenomenon of this hemisphere. it is a failure to deal with the regional reality we face. in 1993 we signed a treaty with mexico and canada. the free movement of goods, capital, information. no provision for the movement of

people in a new economy that is already come into existence. in fact, rather than make a place for a movement of people within north america, we militarize the border with our second-largest trading partner. and in doing so, we made the problem worse. first of all, we militarize el paso in 1993. and the san diego in 1994. in fact, this was not to stop illegal migration. it simply redirected it. along the back border, nobody trusted there. arizona was not anywhere near the top 10 of illegal migration in the united states. but when you build three steel walls from the pacific ocean of to the sierra, and gorbachev

officers staring at that wall -- and a border officers staring at that wall, people started going to arizona. 20,000 people are arriving every day in tijuana and the crossing illegally into san diego. it does not make it to big -- its islamic big impression. lots of mexicans and -- if it does not make a big impression. lots of mexicans on both sides of the border. it does make a big impression. people crossing through open ranch land, open desert. they become apparent. this attracted the media. an invasion. but, in fact, nothing has

changed. volume set not changed at all. in fact, the expansion of the border patrol from about 3000 officers to 22,000 officers today did not have the effect of deterring people from coming. paradoxically, it had the effect of deterring them from going home once they are here. it is simple arithmetic. it used to cost $400 a pop to get into united states. now costs $3,000. you have to work that much longer. stay that much longer to make the trip possible. that will increase migration just by itself. what happened was people have paid the cost and experienced these rising risks and rising rates of gas. once they run the common of the border, they offered to stay rather than returning home to face it again. in the space of 10 years, which

dramatically reduced the rate of return migration back to countries of origin. the average mexican migrants coming to the united states does not seek to move here permanently. they seek to work here for several seasons to earn money to solve an economic problem at home. invest that money at home, and then returned. when there was reasonably free circulation between 1965 and of 1985, 85% of the entries were offset by departures. when we militarize of the border, we ended up spending $3-$4 billion a year. simple equation and demography. he got affect immigration, and

dramatically reduce out migration, net migration increases. that is the source of the rapid growth of the undocumented population in the united states. we militarize the border with our closest trading partner. we did not solve the problem. we made it worse. we transformed what had been a circular flow of male workers going to three states and turned into a settled populations living in 50 states. we doubled the net rate of undocumented population growth in the process. now, we have 11 million people living in this country out of status. these people are -- represent a great loss of human capital to the nation. there is nowhere for them to go. they cannot use their education.

they are confined to a black market. an informal sector in the united states. and the most tragic poor should of this population are the 3 million or so who came with children. they have grown up here. they speak english. a graduate high school. some have struggled and even graduate from two-year colleges or even four-year colleges. we pay for them. we invest in the health and education while they are growing up. just at the time and they are about to enter the most part -- their most productive years, and to contribute to our economy, we say, there is no work for you to go. five years ago, the top graduate in greek and latin was a dominican who came here at age two.

when he graduated as a valedictorian at princeton, he was ousted as an illegal migrant. he was forced to take a full scholarship at oxford university to study phd. we end up supporting one of the top graduates at our top universities rather than making use of his productive skills that we actually paid for. where does this leave us now? well, we are actually a lot closer to comprehensive immigration reform than people think. illegal migration is actually zero. it has been for three years. in 2008, the legal publisher of the lancet peaked. in 2008-2009 half its fell from 12 million to 11 billion -- to 11 million people. it is trending downward.

on a net basis, illegal migration is now zero or negative. the border is, in fact, under control. we have officers and they are having a harder and harder time finding anybody to arrest. there now lower than any time have been since 1972. more and more officers are chasing fewer and fewer people. part of this is the collapse in labor demand with residential home construction. after the great recession of 2008. but, it has also been because without anybody noticing, temporary legal migration was dramatically expanded. people would much rather come here with legal documents. in 2010, there were 517,005 cut

a 37 entries -- 517,537 entries. one of the reasons migration is down is because opportunities have opened up. this is not a very a efficient system. it is channeled through all kinds of bureaucracy. it should be much simpler to give a visa to workers for three years, let them come, and look for a job. let labor markets do their work. supply and demand. rather, we set up indentured servitude. recruiters exploit the workers. nonetheless, when you open up legal opportunities, it has a big affect in reducing the undocumented flow. now, i personally think that the boom in mexican immigration that

we have seen of the past several years is over. think, ourably problem is keeping people out. the problem in the nine states in the years to come is going to be attracting people in. -- in the united states is going to be attracting people to come in. it has declined dramatically since the mid 1970's. mexico has turned a corner. it is becoming an aging society. the huge supply side of pushes we sought in the 1980's and a 1990's is over. the way to move forward is to set up at a tractable system of legal, temporary migration with an expansion of port just for permanent residency.

most people or circuit a few times and retire back. to get money, business, a farm, education for their kids. some will reply contacts with united states sole require a legitimate reason to stay. it is crazy that the united states, which is locked in an agreement with canada and mexico gives canada and mexico the same 20,000 visas per year that we give me paul. -- napal. mexico is 105 million people. there closely connected to us. the largest private employer in mexico is now walmart. at the same time, mexican

workers have been self- increasing their own quotas. congress began stripping away rights and privileges of non- citizens of this country. even if you are an illegal resident alien, you have zero rights in this country. you can be arrested on the authority of a low-level employee of a police department, thrown into the immigration detention system, and they tore right to a lawyer, and no right to protest. a couple of weeks ago reporter region was arrested and held for one week. he was a native-born american citizen. he could not get out. what is a poor immigrant to do? defense of naturalization. you drive up the costs and risks of not becoming a citizen, people will become citizens.

if their intent was to deter a citizenship, that backfired. somebody with a green card has the right to petition for the entry of spouses and minor children subject to limitations. if that person nationalizes and becomes an american citizen, he acquires the right to bring in his parents. will the number of mexicans coming in has been above what her 50,000 per year with a loop -- 150,000 per year. really, it is not very good, but we have one. the quotas have been self- expanding by mexicans own actions.

the border has had negative migration. the only thing that really remains in the way of comprehensive immigration reform is what to do with the people who are here. well, for the 3 million or so who entered as children, who entered as miners and did not make the decision to come here, the only humane and practical solution is to offer them an amnesty. absent any kind of criminal record. if another background check and come up clean, let them get on with their lives in the only country they know. we paid for them to arrive until the age of 18 and then we say, you can i use the skills you required in the united states. you must work in a black labor market. losing all of our investment, or rather a substantial chunk of it.

for those who entered unauthorized status as adults and having this happen to you without willingly crossing the border, for those who became undocumented as adults, i would advocate for many of the proposals you have heard today. bring them a temporary visa. bring them above board. allow them for a period of three years, allow them to prove their worth. start paying taxes. acquired language abilities. take civics courses. after the end of the period, if they have kept their nose clean, if you're the one to punish them and erase the slate, find them. they pay $3,000 to a title, they can pay $3,000 to the u.s. for

a green card. they pay their debt to society. these are civil infractions, not criminal infractions. if the have a criminal record, that is another story entirely. the majority to not have criminal records. he allow them to pay a fine, pay their debt to society, and move forward. that, to me, is the only practical solution to the problem we have. i was testifying before a senate judicial hearing several years ago and the signature of homeland security testified before me and said -- and senator kennedy who was alive for the time aston, can we contemplate reporting a 11 million people? the homeland security secretary said, no, that is impractical. he said we cannot support 11 million people, so we must go to plan b. we are creating, in the

process, a black economy and an underclass in this country. we are shooting ourselves in the foot by not taking full advantage of the skills, the motivation that the immigrants bring to us. now is a good time to do it because the pressure is off. the border is under control. the time has arrived for the final step towards comprehensive immigration reform. creaking a long way to legalization for the 11 million people who are here would go a long way to solving our problems. legalization, and that is, granting permanent resident status, and makes no assumption about eventual citizenship. right now, the law is to become the permanent resident of the

diocese and you can stay in that status for the united -- for the rest of your life. there's no guns and have it naturalize. congress is actually done that in practical terms. but that is a decision you take very become eligible after five years of permanent residence. you have the option, should you want to, to apply for citizenship. after five years of permanent resident status, people are required to apply for permanent citizenship. we are a lot closer than people think. really, an outstanding piece of business at this point is coming to terms of the 11 million people living here at a status who want to live law-abiding, productive lives. [applause]

>> ok. do we have a question from the audience? >> [unintelligible] you said that with confidence that the lot in arizona is not racist. my question is, i'm not sure how you can make that statement with such emphasis given the lack of empirical data. i have not found any study. my understanding is their resistance to letting outside people study. >> [unintelligible] the civil rights division is

engaged in politics. although there are some very specific incidents that have been reference, which i have acknowledged. the individuals involved were criminally prosecuted. right now, it has not been implemented. it has been joined by federal courts which was the beginning of its path to the u.s. supreme court last week. i can say, emphatically, police officers and law enforcement's are enforcing laws and a non- discriminatory manner. they do it consistent with their oath to uphold the constitution. opponents have declared they would racially profiled. i find to be ludicrous. but it does not happen systemically the way people claim it will. it happens on a case by case

basis just as it does with other places around united states. but as far as this will result in a systemic racial profile approach, no. it is my job as chief prosecutor to ensure that when we charged cases and prosecute them that it is done with constitutionally admissible evidence. i know what that looks like. so do my 300 prosecutors. i find it offensive that somehow we will turn a blind eye to this one area of my region of the law. we're completely confident to make the same assessment in every other area of law that we deal with. >> [unintelligible] there has been a couple of people who have said that even though it has not been fully implemented, it is a way to get people to self and the porch. -- self deport.

the think having a loss like that is the way to stop the issue of having illegal immigrants here in the u.s.? do you think this is the way to self deport?ople >> i do not think that, again, it is an approach that would work nationally because of all the other issues that have to be addressed that i mentioned. 1070 is not the only law that arizona has passed to try to address this issue. i want to underscore this. arizona, in trying to address the impact of illegal immigration has been forced, in the absence of responsible federal action, to take action. in addition to 1070 arizona passed a law that denies bail to those in our country who deny --

who are not citizens. arizona recently fell out of the top state for identity theft. that can detect the federal trade commission clearinghouse. we had the illegal immigration workers at that face its own challenge. -- faced its own challenge. as has been noted, that did not mean people return to country of origin. they went to other states. other states have tried to, in some instances, tried to adopt arizona lot to deal with it. this underscores the point. it is good for us to be here and

say that ultimately, for us to have a reasonable, responsible approach to deal with it as a whole, the federal government has got to do its job. b>> this is for you, not to pepper you with questions. seems like you conflate illegal immigration with criminal activity. if sb 1070 was about criminal activity, why is it focus on criminal workers and workplace raids rather than on cartel activities that you cited as the reasons for going after illegals in the first place? why waste all that effort? >> to clarify, i did not say

that is why we went after illegals in the first place. that is why there's a continuing issue, because of the transnational criminal threat along with the other issues we have with respect to having a system where we can require people to comply with bureaucratic requirements for emigration and international security concerns. -- immigration and internal security -- and international security concerns. i would liken it to this. the federal government has received warnings and arizona every single time the legislation acts and the governor signs. every time i have gone to the polls. in fact, 1070 still enjoys overwhelming support in arizona and across this nation. everytime we do this it is a call for the federal government to step up and do its job.

will it address criminal activity? well, you could say that if someone is engaging in employment by using someone else's a dedication, that is criminal. we prosecute that. it is addressing criminal activity. to the extent that it underscores the ability that already law enforcement has to assist and participate in immigration enforcement when the other was have a legitimate law enforcement contacts. it is going towards addressing criminal activity. 1070 acknowledges it is an effort to address criminal activities. let me be clear. not everyone who comes to this country and pursues employment and does not break a federal law is by definition a criminal. but the impact to arizona and our nation as a whole continues to be a significant impact. we do seek criminal-related activity. we have had a shoot outs on i-10

between rival human trafficking gangs fighting over there cargo. that is inherent criminal activity. i mentioned at the auto theft issues. we also have issues of cash being smuggled across the border in both directions. drugs being traffic across our border. i would respectfully argue that while, overall, we may have a secure border in terms of looking at national levels, in arizona it is not secure enough. >> i am going to ask a question here. you have been studying the border for an awful long time. you ask people why they come here and how long they are going to stay.

when you hear the arguments, such as what we just heard, that is all criminal activity -- that it is all criminal activity, off when you think about the people and why they are coming here, do you think that if there was a comprehensive solution, that would make it easier for those people to come here legally? when that diminish criminal activity? in my view. the people come here are looking to stay out of trouble. especially if they're documented. they do not want legal entanglements. if you with the data around the united states, immigrant neighborhoods have a low crime rates. immigrants are less prone to crime than american natives. that does not mean they're not criminal conspiracies and criminal gangs and so on, but on

the whole, immigrants are not elevating our crime rate at all. in fact, they reduce it quite a bit. the problem is that we have criminalize a lot of acts that in the past were not considered to be criminal acts. summit things they do to get by in the nine states have been criminalize. meaning, we have created a loss of criminality. -- some of the things they do to get by in the united states have been criminalize. we created a niche for keitel's -- for cartels. when i started, the average coyote was someone from the migrant's home town. they were mom and pop operations. they added to across from thank you to san diego and left you at

a 7-11. now, it requires safe houses and along transport. it is much more dangerous, much more risky. the price has gone up to $3,000. it has created a lucrative market for criminals and begins to get involved. and not see a strong connection between the narcotics trade and human traffic trade. they tend to be on parallel tracks. the debt load of migrants with cocaine or marijuana. they're run trucks. they build tunnels. have lots of money. they just get down to that peggy level. the basic problem is it is a demand a driven. drugs are quite popular in

united states. there is a strong demand for drugs. that demand a originates from the upper-class white population. as long as demand is there, someone has to rise to supply it. it is the less advantaged elements of society that ended during the trafficking. decades it has not worked. decades have only produced more plentiful drugs at cheaper prices. >> [unintelligible] okay. first of all, it is difficult to even think about debating what led the tank brigade across the sands in desert storm. let me recognize, first of all, i want to make sure everyone understands that there is one,

absolute, solid consensus appear. has been all day. we need immigration reform to come out of our congress. up and address the issue and not avoid it. i have been as my congresswoman's office. she would not do anything i immigration because she thought the unions did not want it. i've been on my knees in jon corzine's office. -- cornyn's office. the moment he says he is willing to address reform, they get his a desk covered up with faxes that come from my good republican friends to act as the puppets those organizations i

named for the puppeteers. i do not argue the right to pass 1070. participated in arguing against it. the states ought to be able to do whatever they want to do. i think it was a terrible mistake for arizona. i am thrilled that we defeated similar bills in texas. i take sp 1070 and -- sb 1070 and rapid up as a sanctuary cityville. it increased more man hours for police when every miss a putt was trying to cut back to balance the budget. it requires federal training for

local law enforcement. number 3, it put more non- violent people in jail at $70 a day. worst of all, number four, it left more immigrant citizen children behind to be taking care of by my taxes. on top of that, our police chiefs and sheriffs across the state came and testified in droves to our legislature they would not help, but it would hurt their ability to enforce the law in hispanic neighborhoods where they had built up a degree of trust. you're an elected official and you're charged with forcing a lot. if arizona once it in force, you have to enforce it. i admire you for that. i am with you. the only reason arizona passed these losses because the federal government has not done its job. i hope everybody here understand so we are all in agreement on that issue.

thank you. his another question i have, and i'll address this to both of you. a lot of people you would say you are on opposite terms of the spectrum. >> i do not think so. i think we have the same goal. >> that is the point of my question. let me rephrase it. people would perceive you as coming from the eighth law and order perspective. there would lifted u.s. coming from the human rights perspective. -- they would look at you as

coming from the human rights perspective. with that viewpoint lined up at a very similar place, given that, and i do not know if u.s. have ever met before or had ever heard each other's views before -- and i do not know if you guys have ever met before or have never heard each other's views before. does it hearing each other's perspective encourage you where did you hope -- or give you hope that there are people on both sides of the spectrum that could come together and solve this? rather than just having this persistent, continuing argument are you for or against s the 1070 -- sb 1070?

>> by having this conversation in this forum, regardless of where you are at on the issue of illegal immigration, you can hear that there is a law enforcement perspective that recognizes the fact that with our current enforcement mechanism, with the current policies of the federal government, i have asked for a copy of his presentation because the fact is that all those red dots represents a human being. it is an absolute travesty that we have a system set up for that occurs. it does not account for a systematic lawful opportunity to be accounted for. we cannot allocate necessary sources. there is a recognition of a human side of all of this, even in the sense that want to see

the law is enforced. there is a large area of convergence for us to get to to be able to drive for a solution here. that is what people need to hear. regardless of how you come at it, we get to the same place. there is a recognition that the government has failed all of us. you heard a variety of different reasons and problem definitions. all those, including with the fact -- in concluding with agreement that our immigration system is broken. we're all in agreement on that. at least, in that regard, we have a shared interest to move forward from. and yet hearing some ideas, i took notes. i think they are really good. [laughter] >> that is great. for the 25 years i have been

working in migration related issues, central america, refugees, all kinds of things. we all agree, anyone who has invested interest in this have to move towards the actual legal, political machinery to affect change in order to achieve the goals we want to see. in that sense, we are all in the same boat. what i do always argue with, and it is my job, is a political philosopher to question the assumptions of others. i am not calling anybody a racist, but i would just baldly said that there were 253 swedish hookers' dying in the arizona desert, if we would have already done something about this. race is involved. there is no ands, ifs, or buts about it.

we're targeting the brown population. that includes the little white irish nurse in the health-care system in st. louis. well, that is all any of them are. interior enforcement does not come anywhere near rivaling the frontier and border enforcement. brown is a bald in this equation. i am sorry. -- brown is involved in this equation. i am sorry. there are assumptions that we can prosecute this out of the existence. that is your job. when janet paul aquino was governor, the same thing. she wanted to do that.

and there is an appropriate place for enforcement. am i hopeful? i am in the hope business. [laughter] am i optimistic? i am not anywhere near as optimistic as doug is. where some really intrenched anti-forces to deal with here. the group politics against rational reform are significant. i just want to say that. i am here. i will go anywhere. somebody give me a pointed end i will make myself -- i will make my case. i am in it for the long haul. i think we all should be. >> just to clarify, we are having these conversations.

the racist approach is one extreme, as was to rid of all borders. apologize for every infraction there maybe is extreme and the other end. my goal is to find the overwhelming majority of americans who are consistent with americans and how we have developed to not ignore the role that immigration has played in our nation. this is a problem we have to address collectively at the right level of government. >> i have one last question. i will ask this for the whole panel. one of the things we hear is this argument that the federal government is not doing their job. the federal government is often defined as the president or the congress. in arizona, we have a

congressional delegation. in texas, the have a congressional delegation. in new jersey, the have a congressional delegation. done anything?ay are they using bills like sb 1070 and other immigration laws to say that, we will just kick the can down the road. we do not have to do anything as long as states might do their own deal? >> the federal government may sound like a bandit -- i will say this again, on increased gdp. on taxes collected, on all kinds of things for the -- all kinds of things. the states that border mexico suffer, particularly the counties. there are a different set of incentives. we just have to deal with that

reality. every once in awhile, i will take health care costs as one of the examples. yet to waver on the port of entry to come in. you get permission from the federal government and get your on reimbursed health care. it doesn't matter if this city, county, state, federal. whenever a third party system there is, it is on reimbursed. -- unreimbursed. what should happen is we need to be much more imaginative and say, this is the federal government granting this benefit. every time that a waiver is written, the bill should be sent to the federal government. just share the joys and costs of human migration. you do not have to change all

the things we want to see here today. you could change a whole bunch of things to quiet political noise associated with migration. that is just one example. incentives are very different. others said that is nice, but there is 49 a bus and one of you. there ought to be some fundamental questions of fairness and equity is that need to be addressed. these are value-driven questions. what kind of people are we going to be. how are we going to shared joys and costs? there are ways to do it. >> the policy approach? so far has not effectively communicated the problems and the solutions and to be applied. up until now, the rhetoric has crowded out real approaches they're going to result in real

solutions. i think, we as a nation, where we are dealing with issues such as this, it takes a while for it to sink in and resonate at a level that the american people start demanding that something happens. i think we're getting there. >> the floor on the mid 1990's, emigration or to a handful of states. those governors could go to washington and say, you know, all the benefits accrue to the nation as a whole, we're paying the costs locally. we need to take account of the fact we are educating and integrating all these immigrants and their kids. they would not find many partners. but now immigration is a 50 state phenomenon. lots of states and never had immigration before have lots now. there's a lot more potential for

coalition building now than there was in the past. the problem is that politicians have tended to take the cheap, easy way out which is to demonize the immigrants and not deal with the problem. everyone agrees is a problem as a whole, but the costs are paid locally. it is is more politically beneficial to stir of people's feelings about immigrants and illegals. >> we will let that be the last word. i want to thank you all of you for attending. you can applaud. [applause] david, we have their e-mail addresses? we will make the presentations available to all of you. we will also post them oni.org

-- azeri.org website. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this morning on washington journal, armstrong williams discusses presidential politics and recent stories in the news, including the anniversary of osama bin lot and's killing. we will discuss the recent report on college graduates, and employment, and earnings. and conservative activists and his views on south carolina. "washington journal" airs every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the secretary general will be at the center for strategic and international studies today to

address the role of the u.n. in post-conflict situations. you can see his remarks a on c- span at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also, the house committee is looking at a bill known as sequestered. you can watch live coverage on c-span3 as their work on the replacement bill. that begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> when it comes to privacy for american citizens, corporate liability and the ability to share information, when we look to protecting its research, good enough is not enough. >> what is the future for us cyber security? tonight on the communicators. howard schmidt on the administration's concerns.

>> this week on "q & a," robert caro discusses "the passage of power," his latest book. >> in your fourth book, you talk about the tension between lyndon baines johnson and robert kennedy. give us some background on when they did it and why there's so much hatred. >> it is fascinating. lyndon johnson is a majority leader. robert kennedy is this 27 year olds one for a senator joseph. how do we know what happened the first time? they told me the same story.

he had breakfast every morning. joe mccarthy had a big round table near the register or he would do its. johnson walks in. mccarthy is there with 45. mccarthy jumps upper. all the others there get up. johnson walks over. he sees that bobby kennedy is not getting up. he stands there. he is forcing him. he does. george is his press secretary. he says there was no reason for it you see two dogs coming into the room. it is a low growl. it is something between those two guys. two guys.