crime issues. and, for example, for the first time we're seeing mexico actually create basically its own vetted border patrol so that, you know, we have an agencies to work with along the border. they basically removed 1500 of their customs officials last year and replaced them with the vetted officers. so our ability to work at the law enforcement level has greatly improved and then lastly i think that progress is being made against the cartels. there have been several significant arrests and seizures -- some have been kept on the on the mexican side. others have been contemplated for extradition to the united states and at the federal level the coordination between president obama and president calderon is very, very close. close. >> very good. thank you. one other thing i don't think we have talked about before is the creation of the import ct commercial targeting and analysis center that you have helped spearhead. at the university of minnesota we've national center for fruit dee dee covered protection and defense that has been certified as a homeland security center for excellence. so we have long recognized the importance of securing the safety of the food chain. and i am just concerned about this being from an agricultural state and starting to see some of the products we have the last few years coming from other countries. food concerns. i'm one of the original sponsors on the bill to bring us more food safety. but i continue to be concerned about what's coming in from outside our borders and the effect that could have on our homeland security. could you talk about that? >> senator, i can. we continue, as you know we have opened up a center in that regard. we are also really working with all kind of food supply change the date could change and will be happy to provide you with a more in-depth briefing. senator feinstein, and her questions to me, related the fact that some agriculture keeping the united we really have got to look at that. >> that is why we call it the food security act. it is important for us to produce our own food. last question is about the recovery act which included a billion dollars to procure and install explosive detection systems and detection equipment for checked baggage at airports and an additional $680 million to improve infrastructure at our nation's borders. can you give an update on how much of the security funding has been spent and how you plan to utilize the funding over the next year? >> i can give you a spreadsheet in detail. but the contracts are out. the obligations have been made. a number of jobs related to those contracts. the airline baggage systems across the country. the northern ports, construction contract have been led and that work is underway. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> we stand in recess. thank you, secretary. appreciate you being here and there will be follow-up questions from several members of the panel. thank you. >> political commentator teaches civil-rights policy at george mason university. most recently published republicans and the black vote which looks at the historical relationship between african-americans and the gop. he is our guest sunday night on c-span's q&a. on friday a group of senate democrats held this news conference to discuss negotiations over a health care bill. we will hear from senator schumer of new york, menendez of new jersey and new jersey senator sheldon whitehouse. this is half an hour. >> you want to hear what we have to say and have no question, right? i am delighted to be here with my colleagues, senator menendez and senator white blue but -- senator whitehouse. thank you for moving this bill forward and many other things they have done. as all of you know one of the main selling points of the senate health care reform bill is we will protect medicare by protecting solvency for five years, fear that medicare would run out of money and cause enormous problems for our senior citizens both now because they are worried and when we actually run out of money. how do we do this? simple. we get rid of fraud, waste and abuse in the system. these are dollars that don't go toward improving seniors benefits one bitch but instead go to assurance companies or otherwise flip through the cracks and jeopardize the fiscal future. i ask anyone to read their bill and they will find all kinds of costs, doctors they never met, this and that. everyone knows the waste and fraud and abuse in the system. if we don't get rid of this waste we do nothing, this system will go broke in seven years. to fix the system we have to reform it. that is why the aarp has hailed the senate bill for, quote, shoring up the solvency of the medicare trust for five years without cutting guaranteed benefits. republicans lately have styled themselves as defenders of medicare. their claims would be hilarious if they weren't so dangerous. but in defending the status quo, republicans are risking letting medicare go bankrupt. that shouldn't come as any surprise considering they oppose the program's creation and tried to kill every since. they have government programs. they say is that. we also know they really don't like medicare, one of the most successful government programs that we have had in terms of making people better. back in the 1960s ronald reagan, one of the most revered politicians in the republican party likened medicare to socialized medicine. the first president bush called it that out right in 1964. former senate majority leader bob dole when he was running for president in 1996 but about voted against medicare. the republicans have no credibility on this issue. in fact congressional republicans have tried to present themselves as defenders of medicare even as they railed against the public option. guess what? medicare is a public option. if you are against the government are against medicare. and they are. they have twist themselves into a pretzel on this issue. during the senate finance committee hearing, senator grassley and the questioning from me said medicare's part of the social fabric of america and at the same time said he hates government programs. if it is part of the social fabric of america, they should join us in protecting and preserving and extending medicare. if it is possible to bring more americans into medicare or something similar to what we believe it is worth exploring. once again our republican friends disagree. on monday senate republican leaders called the idea of expanding medicare a plan for financial ruin. this was just one day after sunday we were defending medicare. they can't have it both ways. maybe it is hypocrisy, maybe it is just an identity crisis, maybe it is just rotten politics. you just can't call republican defenders of the medicare system. it is we who created medicare and we are the ones most committed to defending and strengthening it for years to come. in the 1980s republican slogan was just say no. that worked. it doesn't work anymore. people actually defending medicare, it doesn't go broke. it means there are too many americans without an affordable insurance option. on medicare the american people don't want to just say no. they like it and want to keep it. when you ask the american people who you trust to protect medicare, it isn't the republicans. >> let me thank senator schumer for his leadership. the negotiations he has led to be able to leap over the most difficult hurdles we have. i would like to talk about this a little broader. i think america needs to hear the truth. the truth is to republican this debate isn't about health care. this is an ideological battle driven by the right wing of the republican party. republican colleagues said recently on fox news, quote, this is a battle for the heart and soul of america. it is a struggle between freedom and socialism. between free markets and a centrally planned economy and between we the people and an entrenched class of elite politicians. that is the end of his quote. we are the people. all of us. democrats and republicans alike. the implication that we are not is as offensive as it is ridiculous. and ideological motivated. i fear when i hear such language that this debate is being hyperpolitical scientist to satisfy the fringe element of the right. they want americans to care government. they presided over it for eight years with the republican president. when we had skyrocketing increases in premiums and health insurance when you needed it the most. when we held by listening session and said time and time again. even though i i got a note as it relates to my coverage. republicans talk about death panel and taxes and raising people's first to put a few hot buttons and bring out abortion and come to the senate floor and way of the flag and talk about liberty and free market and proclaiming themselves the protectors of american values and then denounced government as the problem. they call any attempt at health care reform government intervention. they call it socialism. they rise to object and delay and call it patriotism. they huddled with health insurers against hard-working americans who pay higher and higher premiums and get denied coverage and called it defending enterprise. the republicans simply don't want health care reform. they want it their way and no way. our friends on the other side of the aisle think that the business of government is business. we think the business of government is people and we will not stand down from that fight. the fight for people's jobs, their lives, their health and well-being of their families in the face of insurers who are minimizing their risks by denying coverage when people need it the most. what insurers are doing is not what i think of when i think of american values or free-market values. it is greed, in my humble view. it is that simple. this is historic legislation just as social security, medicare, the civil rights act and the clean air and clean water act were historic and republicans them were on the wrong side of history. once again pursue the republicans are on the wrong side of history. however many times they object, delay and obfuscate will not change that fact. they will be on the wrong side of history as they have been so many times before. with that my colleague from rhode island. >> thank you. republican party has been an exceptional institution in american life. it was the party of abraham lincoln, it was the party of the roosevelt, and now this grand old party is out there doing the limbaugh limbo and causing mystified americans to look at their antics and wonder to the old limbo question, how low can you go? i have my opinions but let me share some opinions of others. the editor of the manchester journal inquirer editorial page wrote of the gop which he called this once great and not mostly shameful party that it has gone crazy, that is more and more dominated by the lunatic fringe and poisoned itself with heat. he concluded they no longer wanted to govern. they want to aquino's. a very well-regarded philadelphia columnist wrote of the republican right, if they can get some mileage nothing else matters and you went on to decry paranoia and lunacy. and maureen dowd of the new york times and her column eulogizing her friend william safire lamented the, quote, vial and vitriol of today and while pack of conservative pundits. the takeover of the republican party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. something unprecedented is happening here and it is very bad for america. specifically with respect for health care, a well-regarded washington post writer with a quarter century of experience, married to dirksen senate office building should ministry official, noted about the house health-care bill the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents. she called it a flood of sheer fact one is statements about the health care bill and noted that the falsehood peddling began at the top. her ultimate question was this -- are the republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions? that helps answer the question of how low you can go went a great party defend the limb of limbo and i appreciate join my colleagues to lament this particular episode in our national life. questions? >> i wanted to ask you. people shouldn't face bankruptcy if they get very sick and democrats promised to not allow it to happen. today we learn that the bill being proposed put annual caps on coverage. can you explain how that changed and why and what will it be to people who get very sick? >> i believe you would have to go to the details on this but the caps are very high and there is no cap which has really hurt people. >> the emphasis on the public concerns optional wherever it is, basically be asked -- >> the two major problems we have faced are the public option, which the group of 10 of us tried to resolve and so far so good, we are all waiting to see the score and the abortion issue. are there other little problems? yes. the number one thing that has impressed me sitting around a table for long hours with nine of my colleagues, watching people like senator menendez and senator whitehouse, there is not a single person in that caucus who strongly and genuinely does not want to pass the bill. our own individual needs, ideology and stakes are a centrifugal force and the desire to pass the bill and stay together as a centrifugal force and that will overcome the centrifugal force. >> the public option and medicare -- >> we are all waiting this war but there was very positive reaction the day after we came out after the plan with positive reaction from bernie sanders and joe lieberman. that says it is alive. >> in the last -- [talking over each other] >> mrs. roberts, seventh grade. >> impressive. >> in the last 48 hours there have been a lot of concerns about the medicare from senator lieberman and other moderates, hospitals, doctors. is there a hostility among have to drop that idea? >> we are going to wait. when people see the details they are going to be pretty happy with it. and i think many of the concerns that have been voiced which are legitimate, i believe when we get a score and people see the details -- >> a question about those little problems. the amendment fell on the floor all week and i want to ask is that stuff on the floor because it breaks up the field and there is a worry that there are enough votes? >> it has been championed for a very long time. there are concerns, people have always had legitimate concerns on that issue about making sure senator menendez has consistently -- that the drugs that come into this country are safe and healthy and that is something we are trying to work out. >> senator schumer said the concern -- >> centrifugal force at work. >> big disagreements not from democrats and republicans but internal to democrats and one of them wondering if you are making big changes to this legislation at this late point. just getting those 60 -- do you have reason to believe of medicare by in would be better than the other one given that people over 65 that this is actually the best policy? >> why do you have a legislative process? what do you go to the floor or both through committees? the product always gets refined and new ideas come in. our goal is to pass the best possible bill. both parts of this sentence are operative. pass and the best possible bill. we certainly did urge want to just pass any bill but we certainly realize that every one of us, if we wrote the bill by ourselves and we read the entire senate would write a different bill. if you think you have the monopoly of wisdom and only your way is the right way you probably won't get anything done here. i think the product gets better and better and better. in other words i would say this is my own personal view, that the house bill started off at a place, it got better as its works its way through the senate. i thought the finance bill was the best product at that point. senator reid improved on it with his merge bill. we will see what cbo scores so we don't see the changes that are suggested. my hope and belief is it will improve more. >> let me just add the first part of your question. your premise of your question which was the biggest challenge -- not sure how you can find it. struggles are in our caucus. first of all, the republicans have chosen to be off the plane. they could have been on the playing field but chose not to be. when they walk away after months of max baucus meeting with several of their members and the leadership came down very hard on several of them and said we don't want a bill. bottom-line is of course when you are left to do all of the 60 votes, when you have a filibuster process which they have led which requires 60 votes and all 60 votes are likely to come from democrats, of course the debate is going to be how do you make the best bill within a certain universe. they have taken themselves out of it. that is a point that is important to make. the second part is in the medicare provision if it is sustained, that has been something the democrats for a long time have been advocating. being able to buy into medicare is something many democrats along a wide spectrum have been an advocate for. i don't look at that as something that is that really better or are you just using that to get votes? that has had a lot of support for a long time. >> coming from rhode island where we have a very big senior population and we are not like florida or arizona senior destination states, these are people who were often struggling to get by. for many rhode island seniors, coming of age to qualify for medicare is safe harbor after a lifetime of storms and worries. to move that forward is not an issue that creates a lot of tanks in our caucus between the lower administrative costs, lower provider payments and lower rates that that enables but more than anything else the feeling of comfort and security that you know you have got medicare. it is going to be a big difference for people. i don't see that as a point of great division. >> to regard a medicare by in as something we are saying we don't really want that. that is what we have to settle for. would be a total misinterpretation of the feelings of among most of us as shelton and bob mentioned. the democratic party has long sought it and look, here's another reaction. look at people who very much look forward to the public option. not all but any say at this is a step up especially given that the public option that we ended up with was not as strong as some would like. any idea that this was a fall back, i think it is a big step forward and that is how most of us feel. we can only take one or two more because senator mcconnell -- the other thing i want to say, compare the gentleman from the new york times, it is -- all the fight is among democrats. lookt the difference. we are struggling to come together on the most difficult issue america has ever faced and we had getting close to the finish line. we have had our disagreements but it hasn't been poisonous in any way. look at the difference. it is pure politics. this is nice when it says identity crisis. is basically coming up as one of the things sheldon read. the political argument of the day. one day they like government and medicare and one day they don't like government and medicare. there is no consistency, no feeling of here is how to make things better. it is tactical. here is our best argument today and let's see if it resonates even if it has nothing to do with the argument of yesterday or their true feelings. end just say it is going to be one of our saving graces because it will save us a lot of trouble. the american people see that. they see we are trying to do the right thing for them and they see a cynical politics is in, just say no of the republicans and i predict in 2010 that will serve u