be so today. one of the things to take into consideration is ultralights can really take off and land pretty much anywhere, so the whole operation area opens up that aperture than other areas we have seen across the southwest with border. we have and will continue to experiment with ground-based radar to be able to tweak the radar to make sure we are able to identify low-flying ultralights and others that may be flying in that particular area. the truth of the matter is we still look to find out and adjust our policies. first and foremost as a law enforcement organization, you know, we enforce laws in the united states, and we do so with a matter of consistency, compassion within the constitution. one of the challenges that we face right now is even if we detect an ultralight and identifying it anding with able to track it -- and being able to track it, the end game, if you will, has not been established in terms of what we can do to that particular ultralight because in many cases the

ultralight when it makes entry into the united states does not land. it'll simply just kick out its cargo which up until this point has been narcotics, predominantly marijuana, and then there's a ground crew that later picks up the marijuana and moves on. so it doesn't land in the united states, it just turns around and goes back into mexico. so we're, wog with the department and science and technology to increase the effectiveness by which we detect the entry in the first instance by the ultralights and continuing to work within the law enforcement framework on how we can mitigate this evolving threat. >> according to border patrol agents, the $100 million detection program has not worked and has been a waste of taxpayer money. another quote, border patrol and ultralight aircrafts, impossible to stop. we don't have the technology. this was also reaffirmed on my official term of nogales with the border patrol. another border patrol agent, difficult mission to find drop locations, intercept narcotics

and arrest smugglers. success rates are low. those are the comments from the boots on the ground, those guys in the trenches. and i have another question in regarding this. it would seem to me that, well, we have this very expensive fence. it's 18 foot tall, and i'm asking questions, and, you know, i just want answers. you can't put razor wire on top because people are hopping over the fence, people are driving up and actually with a torch cutting through the steel and sending people in that way, and then they're welding it back up so the border patrol doesn't see it. and then in other cases what else? number of tunnels. there's no real detection. and i asked about dogs. now, is there some problem with employing more dogs with our border patrol agentses? >> not that i'm aware of, sir, no. >> okay. so instead of this $900 million on -- $100 million on a system

that doesn't work, we know dogs can detect, i know this for a fact, can detect things in the sky as well as on on the ground. and it's very low tech. maybe not as sexy, but what's your comments on that? should we employ more dogs versus $100 million worth of high-tech -- >> i wouldn't suggest substituting, you know, k-9 and their handlers for technology or their infrastructure. we employ approximately 300 k-9s and handlers throughout the border. they along with the horses and other types of technology that we have is a complement. and the other thing to take into consideration or i would perhaps foot stomp this as well is that each section of the border is different. what may work in a place like yuma, arizona, may not work in a place like nogales. some of the ultralight technology may not work in the sections of el paso, texas, but it works really well in a place like el centro, california. so it's identifying the geography, the tactics, techniques and procedures of the

criminal organizations, understanding how they operate, understanding the extent to which they're vulnerable so that we then can exploit that. and there is no cookie cutter approach to be able to do that in my opinion, sir. >> thank you. we'll come back to this. chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. kelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to talk about the data issue. one thing that seems clear from today's hearing and from the government accountability office's comprehensive review of the department's border security statistics is that the number of immigrants apprehended by the department or apprehensions has declined markedly along the southwest border between 2006 and 2011. this amounted to about a 68% drop in apprehensions which seems to suggest the border enforcement is currently working. ms. gambler, do you infer this from the data, that the number of illegal border crossings has fallen, and if so, isn't this a good thing? >> the data that we reported in

that report and you cited was on apprehension. so that's the number of illegal entrants who the border patrol arrested. and that data shows that apprehensions declined from fiscal year 2006 to 2011. the 2012 data reported by border patrol indicate that apprehensions increased from fiscal year 2011 levels. in that report we also provide data on estimated known illegal entrants by sector, and those numbers as estimated by the border patrol did decrease in southwest border sectors over that time. >> while the meaning of apprehensions data by itself seems to be the subject of some debate, it remains clear that the department continues to use this figure on an interim basis until it's able to develop an alternate approach, and that poses some concerns. ms. gambler, how long has border patrol used the numbers of apprehensions as its interim performance goal?

>> since fiscal year 2011. >> and, chief, welcome, chief fisher. when will border patrol begin using a more comprehensive data point for measuring flows across the border? >> we started developing those this year, and we'll baseline this year and really start with the new metrics in fiscal year '14 which will start 1, october. >> okay. and can you please explain how the border patrol currently uses apprehensions data such as where to allocate resources? >> right. well, the apprehension data in and of itself does not dictate where we deploy or redeploy resources. that decision is based on risk, and it's done both in terms of my staff at headquarters looking at the strategic laydown of all forces within the northern, southern and coastal environments. and really it's left in the hands of the field commanders in the field to be able to deploy and redeploy those resources within the areas that they have operational control over. >> and if you were to get additional border patrol agents, where would you place them? where would you see the bigst need? >> certainly.

we would look into areas, for instance, of where we're unable perhaps to put fence or unable to put certain pieces of technology. because it's a combination. it's not just putting more border patrol agents. we have to do that in consultation with, certainly, the field commanders and the border patrol agents that tell us what works, what doesn't work. and we would make sure we put the resources in the areas of highest risk along our borders, and then we would work back from there. and can and how often do you check, do you have every three months or every month? what's the evaluation process? >> well, quite frankly, with 21,370 border patrol agents, they are not shy to call me and let me know through e-mail what works and what doesn't work, and i appreciate their willingness to tell us in headquarters what is the best approach. >> okay. ms. gambler, do you have any current concerns about the apprehension data and how it's used? >> the, in terms of the

apprehensions data, that is data on the number of illegal entrants that the border patrol apprehends. in our december 2011 report, we did identify some limitations with the data that border patrol collects and estimates for what are called turnbacks and gotaways. and the limitations with that data preclude border patrol from using that data to make comparisons in performance across sectors. now, border patrol issued updated guidance to the field in september 2012 to provide for a more common approach to estimating turnbacks and gotaways across the southwest border sectors, and we understand that the border patrol sectors are implementing that guidance. >> and, chief, do you feel like you have a more complete data picture including gotaways and turnbacks? >> we're getting better at that, but let me be clear. we are trying, in some ways i say we, broadly have to be very careful of applying a very

specific scientific method to a function and operation that does not allow that. we're going to do the best we can to determine how many people came in, and of that number how many people did we apprehend. but no technology or no system that i'm aware of is going to with 100% accuracy make that determination going forward, and it doesn't exist in other law enforcement organizations that i'm aware of. >> my final is up. -- my time is up. thank you. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona, dr. gosar. >> thank you again, mr. chairman. before i start my second line of questioning, i want to make a point that we make sure that mr. lang lace has an opportunity to come before this opportunity. either he comes here or we go there, because i think we need to have this discussion in front of the american people. ms. gambler, one of the things that i'm critical about, and i, to be honest with you, i'm a big fan of gao. but in this grace what i want to see is you cited a number of studies in regards to the

gentlewoman from illinois. i need to see that same type of application from where we're coming from in arizona. so i want to see some equal latitude. mr. fisher, you just made a comment that what works in yuma doesn't work anywhere else. but the principles are the same, are they not? deterrent, enforcement and apprehension and then, also, going before justice? isn't that true? >> the principles and the strategy apply, but the application -- >> oh, i'm -- >> -- on different geographic areas do not. >> oh, i'm happy with that. i'm happy with that. let me ask you a question, both mr. fisher and mr. murphy. do you feel that the folks in southern arizona can actually say that today? >> in some locations, that would be accurate. in others -- >> some. some. >> that's correct. >> how about you? >> yes, sir. >> yeah. so i would say if we really want to start making this deterrent or dictation, probably about the 50 miles coming from the california border is secure

beyond going into the tucson sector from that 50 miles not secure. we've got some type of problem with the tucson tech to have and then going further east we've got bigger problems, do we not? >> in somewhat of a west-to-east, you know, quick look at the border which -- and by the way, sir, as you mentioned, that's always going to fluctuate with the criminal organizations adjusting their operations. >> oh, i know. and from what i understand, you know, we've got a problem in the tucson sector. it has shifted more to the texas side, but you're right. but there's still some generalities that we can hold true, can we not? >> certainly. >> okay. can we put the slide up here up on the screen? these signs were found posted not at the border, not within 20 miles of the border but posted 80 miles from the border. our local law enforcement officers have told us that our policies are failing. that the enforcement measures are so shoddy that it's an

equivalent to ceding parts of our country to cartels. i'm saddened by the illegal activity on our southern border, but i'm downright angry that the federal government isn't doing its part to protect its own citizens. i do think the thousands of agents and officers that put their lives on the line, but it seems there's such a disconnect between those and the bureaucrats taffe marched up to tell us what they think we want to hear. we go directly to the source which is what i do. i'm a science guy. to get the raw intelligence before it's scrubbed and framed here in washington. i have talked to numerous cbp agents during my time in congress. the story they paint is far different than the one painted by dhs, representatives here today and in the news media at large. one agent told me that the methods for counting border crossings is completely inadequate as the officers are told to count tracks going north. the problem is that the drug runners cover their tracks very

carefully going north because they don't want to be tracked. the numbers found going north is often less than those found going south because the cartel members don't care if they're being apprehended going south. they've already dropped off their drugs, and they might as well get a free ride home. another agent told me that when he first started, one of his supervises started a meeting one day by saying apprehensions are down, we're not catching as many people. this particular officer lowered his head feeling he and his colleagues were about to be scolded. you can imagine when he was congratulated and told good job by that same supervisor. one agent referred to the apprehension metrics by measuring border control as asinine. whereas napolitano, our secretary, claims that the worder is safe -- border is safe and secure better than before, the people who do this for a living estimate they might apprehend 20% of border crossings on a good day. when it's possible one of the

most shameful things i have been told by agents on the ground is they feel they actually have two jobs, to fight the drug cartels and the so-called coyotes, but their job is a constant fight with the federal government. in their words, they have to fight their own employer to do the job they were hired. this is a situation that could only be created by the this town. mr. chairman, i would ask that you consider having another hearing at a later date in which we can invite cbp officers and other state and local officers from the front lines that they're actually able to offer us some real perspectives and help guide us toward a real solution. you know, when we start looking at the border, a fascinating issue. we have forest service, we have primitive areas, and we have to have a common sense policy in which to have apprehensions to make this country secure. so i'd like the hear from the border patrol agents directly. thank you. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. >> be well, first of all, --

absolutely had it with officials who refuse to appear before our committee. this is the chief investigative panel of the house of representatives. what's this guy's name, los lan- [inaudible] okay. i want a meeting, you're acting chair right now, but i want a meeting staffed with mr. fray fetes and mr. ice saw, and i want these people held responsible. we will subpoena his butt in here, or they will appear before us one way or the other. this is the last time this is going to happen that i'll be involved in any of the subcommittees or the full committee and have particularly a dhs staffer -- and this is an important position, this isn't just any staff -- not appear before this committee. and it's important that he appear with these other witnesses.

i'm absolutely frosted, and this is the last time, i guarantee you. they will regret not appearing before our committee. i don't care who it is. so, again, i know you're acting chair right now, sir, and, staff, i want a meeting within the next 24 hours with chairman fray fetes and also -- chaffetz and mr. issa, and we have to bring the other side of the aisle in, whatever it's going to take. but, again, i'm not very pleased that we would have, again, the associate director for refugee asylum and international operations thumb his nose a at a legitimate request, timely given, to appear before this committee, subcommittee of congress. i have some information, i guess, both mr. fisher and mr. murphy u customs and border

protection. who oversees procurement of some of the equipment? who would have the most knowledge? both of you have equal knowledge? i understand, i wasn't here earlier, but you're looking at mobile rather than the fixed surveillance system, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> mr. murphy, correct? >> yes. >> okay. and i have information from a whistleblower that there are several types of these surveillance equipments that are available, and one is available at $54 million, and the second's available at over $100 million. are you aware of that, the two principal types of mobile surveillance equipment that you're using? >> i'm not aware of that, sir. >> no, sir. >> okay. well, i want you to be aware of it. this is information i have that, again, on the procurement that you're picking the or dividing the contract. i'm not, i'm not interested in a

50% premium that the taxpayers pay on this mobile equipment. i want a report back from one or both of you on what's going on, what kind of equipment's being purchased, why you're paying twice as much for some equipment that has the same capability, i'm told, as the other equipment, okay? do you get it? >> yes. >> back to the committee through myself or the chair, i want a report on why you're paying twice as much for some equipment that has the same capability as others. we have very limited amount of money, isn't that correct, gentlemen? >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> constraint. so this is something that's been brought to my attention by a whistleblower. i want it verified and documented exactly what you're doing here. okay. let's go to border crossings and protection. there's about three different types of entry document withs.

there's -- well, four or actually. the passport, right? global entry, you can get in with a global entry card, do you have to have a passport too? murphy, fisher? >> yes, sir. based on the western hemisphere travel initiative, obviously, we took about 8,000 different documents out there, and there's just a few. but with a passport -- >> can you get in with a global entry by itself? >> well -- >> yes or no. >> i'll have to get back to you. i know that -- >> you -- wait! what is your position? >> i'm acting assistant commissioner for field operations. >> and you can't tell me whether i can get in or out with a global entry card, a document -- >> well, in order to get the global entry card you have to have that document, and your face will appear on the south korean when you're coming through. but -- >> but can someone entering the united states from canada or mexico or somewhere come in with just a global entry card? >> i'll have to get back to you,

sir. >> oh. oh, dear, god. please, don't tell me that they're -- you're acting. that's pretty scary. okay, there's two other documents. one is nexus and -- >> nexus is canadian. >> it's the cargo through trucks. >> okay. and there's another one then for -- what's the one for mexico? is there a card for mexico? >> zen try. >> sentry. >> we've got all these cards. i had a hearing a couple weeks ago on id cards which is, again, so and so from dhs isn't here, so we can't go after him because they're responsible for overseeing some of the standards. but we have all these cards. none of them have a dual biometric capability, is that right? >> dual metric in terms of -- >> fingerprints and iris would be biometric. >> yes. they have -- it's fingerprint.

>> but they do not have dual. >> right. so they don't have -- >> we had also someone at a hearing -- get the transcript of it from last week -- testify from the fgi that fingerprint -- fbi that fingerprints can be altered, they're not secure, okay? and the only secure means of identification that's guaranteed would be dual biometric. that's iris and fingerprint. but we do not have anything with iris; nexus, fast, global entry, passport, what was the other one you told me? sentry. right? >> i believe we're looking at the iris, but i don't believe we have it. >> yeah. for 11, 12 years i asked that that be done in law after 2001, i think in 2002. repeated it in this haw several times. and here again we do not have a dhs person to testify. so we have a document that's being used that can be

undependable. and you don't know if global entry can be used to get in. what about the others? can they get in with just, from canada with the nexus card? >> i apologize, sir. i know you have to have that card -- >> oh, dear god, where do they send these people from? >> mr. mica, we're going to have to wrap it up. >> now, wait a second. did you have two rounds? well, i haven't had my first -- that's my first round, so i'll go into my second round. did you have a waiting democrat that wants to go first? >> yes, we do. yes. >> we'll let her go, and i'll come back. i'll try to recover in the meantime. >> gentlewoman from new mexico, gentlelady, excuse me, from new mexico, mrs. gris sam, thank you. >> thank you very much, purchase, -- mr. chairman, thank you to the panel. i'm in an interesting position

in that from new mexico we have a small, unique border from new mexico to mexico. but are affected primarily by the border at el paso. but not then we don't get the same border health investments, we don't get the same federal investments for border protection issues that are beyond the border itself but invest in the state. and so we are affected by trade issues which i know have been a topic this morning in terms of some of the questions. we're affected by the efficacy of what you do on the border. we have public safety issues, and we also have one of the highest drug trafficking and substance abuse problems per capita in the country. now, as a proponent of comprehensive immigration reform which i think helps us with border activity because now we've got a legal pathway for folks to go back and forth, i am absolutely concerned about security issues, and i think that this question given the topics of the questions today is

really for ms. gambler. of all the investments and, of course, we've had significant investments and watching what's occurring in the senate, there is momentum for even more investments at the border, tell me which of those investments -- personnel, equipment, fencing, high-tech investments -- which of those are the most effective? and i, i need to know that both in terms of whether it's a cost effective aspect or whether it's giving you those protections that we're interested in having occur at the border. >> congressman, your question gets at a key takeaway from a number of gao reports that we've issued looking at cbp's efforts to deploy technology infrastructure and personnel along the border. and that takeaway is that the department has been challenged to be able to identify the contributions that its invent to

border security. for example, we've recommended that the department conduct a cost effective assessment to be able to assess the contributions that tactical infrastructure and fencing have made to border security. with regard or to technology -- with regard to technology, in our review of dhs's new technology plan for placing surveillance technologies along the southwest border, we recommended that dhs identify the benefits and metrics for assessing implementation of the plan and the technologies going forward. so your question gets at a key takeaway from a number of reports we've issued on border security efforts. >> so my issue is, and i'm hearing that from my colleagues on both sides, is that while we know we need to do that, we've got to perform those evaluations. we don't have that concrete information. in your opinion, given that, again, unprecedented investments, i'm concerned about whether they're making the difference that we need.

should our next set of funds, assuming they move forward, be contingent upon those assessments and you can only draw down if you can demonstrate that, in fact, it's going to be a cost effective investment that also brings about real results at the border? >> that would, you know, certainly be a policy call for congress. but our recommendations have gone to the need for dhs to be able to assess the benefits from its investments and the contributions that those investments are making to its border security efforts. >> okay. because if we don't do that, then the reality is you -- and i hope -- have immigration reform continue to make sure that we do have secure borders, invest in technology that we'll be using in other places and efforts, and if we don't do it on a contingent, effective manner, then we will not regardless of the policy decisions that we make sheer have an effective --

here have an effective environment for protecting and securing the border while making sure that effective trade takes place and legal travel back and forth across the border is not minimized but is accepted in a productive and safe manner. and i'm based on the testimony today, i am very concerned that we don't have that information readily available to us. and so that minimizes any of the efforts that we make here in congress. is that a fair statement? and now anybody can answer. 23 whole seconds. no takers? come on. mr. murphy? >> ma'am, i think we're working very hard to identify our risk. i think we're working very hard and, again, not to beat a dead horse, but our workload staffing model, i think, is helping us identify areas that need additional resources and, basically, trying to take more

of a business transformational type of look at our processes and how we do business. >> all right. sounds to me like we may not be as ready as we should. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. loomis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to the previous comment by the gentlelady from new mexico, therein lies the problem. trying to get us to do comprehensive immigration reform at a time when we cannot assure our constituents, the people we work for, that the border is secure is a nonstarter. when i go home, all i hear about is secure the border first, then we'll talk about comprehensive immigration reform. i hear that from all aspects,

from are all of my -- from all of my constituents. and i cannot tell them that we have accomplished step one, secure the border, which is their green light to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. this is not a new condition that the american people -- especially those from nonborder states -- have put on us. they've been telling us for years, secure the border first, then we'll talk about comprehensive immigration reform. there's a bill, probably passed the senate today, that will comprehensively reform immigration. it is not going to pass the house because we have not addressed the one condition the american people have put on us before they'll allow us to have a robust conversation about comprehensive immigration

reform. we haven't secured the border. now, my constituents have asked me this repeatedly, is a fence the least expensive, most effective way to secure the border in land-to-land border crossings? ..

now if you were me, with and you go home every weekend and your constituents are telling you to secure the voters. would you vote for the amendment? >> representative, i'm not in a position to, one, put myself in your position. in similar circumstance my wife and son ask me the same question. we have an interesting substitution about that. i can understand the challenge you are looking at right now. >> what you tell your wife and child? >> i true to change the subject, ma'am. >> i bet you do. mr. murphy? >> ma'am, it's an important issue. >> let me ask you the corker amendment, 20,000 troops, 700 miles of fence on our southern

border. would you vote for that amendment? >> i don't think i can put myself in your position and answer that. >> do you have the same conversation with your family as mr. fisher? >> yes. >> what do you tell them. >> we have men and women doing the best they can do with what they have. >> is the southern border secure? >> we don't have . >> mr. murphy, is our southern border secure? >> i think we are working toward that end. >> is it now? if i go home this weekend, can i tell my constituents, and they're going to ask is our border secure. what would you say if you were me? >> we are doing our best. >> mr. fisher, what would you say? >> in certain sections along the border it is in fact true. >> can you show u a map and show us where it's not secure? >> in some locations, -- >> can you advise in those

locations, those some locations where cow can tell us, can you tell us how to make it secure? >> we're in the process of building that now. >> when will that process be completed? >> probably in the next few months. >> when you get it are you going to share it. >> it would be my intent to do so, but it wouldn't be my call. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mrs. kelly. >> clearly the border patrol collects data other than apprehension and they reviewed this data, for instance, gao analyzed a percent a.j. of repeat border crossers and it decreased. they may have declined over the last six years, what else do you think they tell us?

>> the resit vifm rate data covers a period from 2008 to twch. it found the rate decreased by 6% during that time. it rook -- look at estimated known illegal entrance who were apprehended more than once. it's not exactly the same -- it's not exactly the same as looking at data on apprehension. it's looking a the the number who have been apprehended more than once. >> thank you. >> also just wanted to make a comment that i totally understand on both sides of the aisle in this committee when we called someone, we expect the person to be here and expect the person to an our questions, but i also -- it is my understanding that the gentleman has offered to sit down with staff, so just want to make sure we give him a little

credit for that. i agree, when we call people, they should come to session. for my understanding, that he has offered to sit down with the staff. so thank you. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let go back to the identification that are used for entry at the border, either of you gentleman, mr. fisher, mr. murphy, are you familiar with any technical of the boards that approve the credentials that are used for crossing the border, mr. fisher? >> i am not, no. >> and mr. murphy? >> no , sir. >> is this why it's so difficult to conduct this hearing without someone responsible from dhs who

can answer these questions. we have least five documents i cited. none have buy biometric capable. the acting commissioner and the chief not. did you know, mr. fisher, if, again, those documents can be used by themselves either global entry, an ne x sis or century? >> i don't know that, sir. it's not my area of expertise. >> again, i think as chief of u.s. border customs and intersection, you should know which towments can -- documents can be used. i'm not able to question, again, whether or not terrorist any coordination -- there's any coordination in the

development of those documents, and what they contain or the capability they contain. how many individuals were amp ended last year, maybe you have already told the subcommittee? crossing the border illegally? >> i don't the number. i can tell you that we arrested process, removed 410,000. >> you removed 410,000 back to their original point of entry or whatever country they came from? >> yes, sir. >> how many then are incarcerated in the united states in last year at any time? it would be all of them? is there a population of illegals in our presence? >> yeah. 410,000 removed last year, 225

were convicted criminals. we got -- >> 225 were convicted criminal. >> 225,000. >> 225,000. >> yeah. 55% of the 410,000 were convicted criminals. >> okay. and do you detain those convicted criminals? >> yes. we would -- we have four priorities. those the threat to national security and community safety. which are convicted criminal. and those fugitives. >> the taxpayers foot the coast while they're in prison? do we also pay for the legal cost? do you have any granddaughter -- grand -- are they read any rights? >> administrative prosecretary jewell. if they whatever state or federal vicinity we get them after the fact. we try to process them for removal while still in the custody of the law enforcement agency so we don't incur necessary costs. >> are they entitled to any kind

of legal could counsel we provide? >> they can get their own counsel out of administrative -- >> okay. any idea as to the cost of incarcerating these individuals? >> in our custody or the custody of law enforcement? >> what is your cost -- orest mitt estimate of the cost of incarceration? >> at 34,000 beads year. they turn over quickly. the fund, for operations are $1.7 billion. >> i saw a member of custom and border patrol people were killed historically maybe the last decade. have most of the culprits been apprehended, mr. murphy, mr. fisher, do you know? >> over the last few years there

have been arrests of individuals who have -- there was enough evidence to warrant their arrest that were attributed to violence against border patrol agents and in some case the killing border patrol agents. >> i remember working with reagan administration when they killed an agent, and i like the way reagan handled it. he closed the borders for awhile. but we still have people who haven't been amp ended -- apprehended who have killed our agents; isn't that true? i think that's a sad commentary. i think we need do everything possible to target those individuals. that would be a good use of drones. all right but to take them out when you kill enforcement

officer or border patrol personnel in the united. states. i yield back the balance. >> did you have anymore questions? [inaudible] >> no. i would like -- if the staff could san send a letter, i've asked a response on paying twice as much. i guess they divided up the contract between a couple of venders and one of the pieces of equipment, i understand, costs twice as much of the other. it's nice to divide the contract. i don't care about it. i'm looking at the taxpayers that has the came capabilities. i want to find out about the surveillance equipment and acquisition, the cost of the equipment, difference any capability. and why we justify paying twice as much for the same thing. we will have the meeting with

the chair of the subcommittee and the full committee chair calling in the dhs witness. other than that, again, appreciate the courtesy. >> thank you. i have a few more questions. mr. fisher, you testified earlier that part of the border is secure and other parts are not. what parts of the border are unsecure? >> >> these would be areas where generally we don't have access to the immediate border. we don't have full time deployment of border patrol agents and we have very little e or nonexistence technology. it's in the area where intelligence leads us to believe that the criminal organizations may be exploiting the area. we adjust our resources accordingly. that's what i meant in some places where the border is more secure than others. >> what percentage is unsecure? >> i don't have a percentage. >> miles? >> it's harder to distinguish

mimes. it fluctuates. >> okay. what particular areas, new mexico, arizona? >> all across the southwest borders there are sections considered secure and some less secure. it's a good example, there's a five-mile stretch in san diego. my recent post as chief of san diego, that five miles is between port of entry and the old time mesa port of entry. you may have visited on one of the recent border tours. that section of the border has been pointed out to me. that's what we need the whole southwest boarder to look with. within the five-mile stretch they put single fence. we had all-weather roads. there's a secondary fence between 15 and 18-feet high. we have razor wire, triple strand, there are sensors around the second compair fence, we have integrated fixed towers and

border patrol agents rue teeb -- routinely deploy that. very little people cross that section. if you look over the last ten years, the predominance of tunneling that area is the most exploited. >> thank you. i'm looking for what part of the border is unsecure. you mentioned that it's -- part of the border is secure. the ore other part is unsecure. now you are saying back peddling saying it's not as secure. it's secure or not secure. >> well, that's the interesting point, sir. when you look at security, it's not an either/or proposition. it's the state of the border at any particular time. any section of the border that we say is secure is probablily continuing to be exploited. >> yeah. you said part of the border is less secure. >> that's correct. >> okay. so you're saying at certain

times all of the border is unsecure and sometimes it is secure? i'm confused. >> i would like to help you fix the border and make sure it's secure 100% of the time 24/7. you are telling me -- parter of the border is not secure. what geographic area is unsecure? >> there are certain segments. we are talking about arizona in the desert. one particular area where i would qualify right now we have less security in that particular area than we do in other parts of arizona. >> do you have a map? can you get a map. >> i can get a map. i'm an old soldier. my perimeter is going to be secure. when i go to sleep at night. i want to know i have people throughout protecting my perimeter. >> i understand sir. >> you know how it; works; right? >> i do. >> americans want to know to sleep at night knowing the perimeter is secure. i want to know, like a soldier,

what part is the weakest? what part is the strongest. what can we do to fix it? >> understandable. >> i have a few more questions. i was reading a blog from -- what date is that? debby -- she's a blogger. what does she mean by the term "reverse escort." can you answer that question? >> i can answer that activity. -- question. >> the activity in rio grand valley has gone down. we see an increase in other mexican arrests, citizens from el salve door, guatemala, our officers want to make so much overtime, and allow the -- unaccompanied juveniles.

these are nationals under the age of 18. we only allow to detain them to 72 hours before we turn them to department of health and human services. with the surge in the unaccompanied alien juvenile arrest. we have by law and statute are supposed to turn them over to hhs, they have this all across the country. we have contacted saying with i have a juvenile in custody. where do we take them? we have to deliver the unaccompanied juvenile to them so they can place them in a facility comparable for a juvenile. my officer were doing so many escorts of the juveniles, there are bumping up against the overtime cap. so the cost is the same for an officer to go san antonio to detroit to drop off a juvenile with health and human services and fly back to san antonio is a fixed cost. since we're bouncing up against the camp. what we're asking the other officer do is fly down to san antonio, pick up the juvenile and take them back to detroit.

same cost across the board. it's a way to deal with the budget and the mandate of the limit of overtime we can pay the officers. >> according to the blog, they're saying that immigration agents are dropping them off in sanctuaries awaiting amnesty. >> that's not accurate. my officer turned them to health and human service. they have contracts with certain people that detain the juvenile and make sure he get the medical and food and gets a hearing from the immigration judge and get order removed. you have to talk to health and human service how they contract with the house of juveniles. but that's totally taken out of context. >> okay. so the other question is why would you fly a juvenile or anybody from texas or arizona or new mexico to detroit to await

trial or some kind of dispositions? >> health and human services ran out of beds in texas. they have contracts all over the country. it's in all in fifty states because of the surge in the rio grand valley they ran out of beds in texas. how hhs hhs tellings us the available to take care of the child. here is where you bring them. it's the health and human services calling on where the characteristic offer bedding. >> thank you, by the way. i appreciate it. for clarifying this. what is the catch and release thing. you have -- like, i toured elloy, a holding facility, a prison? >> it's a detention facility. >> detention facility. i understand you have so much bed space. >> we are funding for 34,000 beds. >> at el elloy 15,0600.

>> about 1500. right. if all the beds are filled and you have 30 that you just caught where do they go? >> well, we actually had over 37,000 in custody. we are over burning the budget because of the strong -- he don't get them -- make sense. but we do is as the -- if we are beyond budget, aliens come in to custody we need make a determination. is there somebody sitting in a bed that is a noncriminal, nonmandatory maybe a child serving in the armed forces. can we take him and put him in an alternative form of ankle bracelet and make the bed for a priority case. criminal alien, those in threat of national security, and recent border crossers. we actually increase the beds in texas to make sure that we can

dpe contain -- detain recent border crossers. i think it's an important border patrol strategy. >> i heard border patrol agents tell me they get a message saying beds are filled, and they don't respond to or make a real big effort capturing all the 26 and maybe capture throw or four. is that accurate? >> no, what i can tell you as a matter of fact, we detain all recent border entrants. we have brought on a couple of thousand more beds in texas to deal with the influx. there are situations where somebody is released from the custody. we release people every day like every jail. maybe we can't gate travel document. he's from a country, for instance, somalia. we have a supreme court decision that says we can detain someone to six months. if there's no significant hoot

-- hood of likely removal. border patrol gives us -- we make a priority to get the alien. if they unaccompanied juveniles we turn them over to hhs. if they claim fear, and get interview by cis and they find a fear of claim positive, then that alien becomes eligible for bond. a lot of times they are on bond, if they meet bond set by the judge, if they -- if there's a human concern. maybe an alien comes over and we find out is a sole care giver to a child, and he's not a danger to society he might be better on a alternative form of detention. >> thank you. we heard report of significant increases in other than mexicans otn crossing the border. the chairman tweeted about nine

are main begans apprehended during the recent trip, and some arizona news outlets are reporting an increase in indians nationals. more than 1,000 of january this year crossing to the state. what other countries are they coming from? >> the big majority right now -- in order, is guatemala. let me explain what we did with that. we bring in so many ogm in custody we got away over 37,000. i expected my staff to meet with the staff of guatemala, el. they have interview and make sure they are in the country and issue a travel document. it took twenty days. the beds are back up. what i did is issue instruction to start a pilot agreement.

we they are doing interviews now. they are issued a travel document within 24 hour. reassign flight hours. in the last two weeks we removed over 5,000otm to the country. it got the bed level down. as far as east indian in arizona, cvp it speak to that, it's my understanding they are surrounding themselves at the worder entry claiming fear. at that point the process is we contact cis and they arake an interview and trying to make a determination if the fear is credibility. if they make determination he has a substantiated crippled of fear returning to the homeland. he becomes eligible under release. >> if they are claiming fear, the nine roman

i know the east indian issue because it's well over a thownd that got our attention. i'm unfamiliar with that case. we get -- last year even with the indians over 150 countries. we see aliens from every country on the planet. >> walk me through this. you have a new -- somebody comes to elloy, they go before a judge. >> yeah. on most of the nationals, he turn them around quickly. >> otm. >> otm, before we can remove them to the homeland, they have to be interviewed by officials of their country to ascertain, that yeah, they are in fact a citizen of guatemala. after that interview, they have the guatemala government will issue a travel document that identifies them as a national of the country. that allows them to take them to the country.

if we arrest somebody for otm they set them up for immigration hearing. >> how many show up? >> it depends -- >> after you release them. >> it depends, if they are released on some sort of super vision, make a ankle bracelet it shows about 80% show rate at the hearing. those are released on or, of course the appearance rate is lower. what the border patrol doing in a smart way, those arrested crossing the border border patrol process expedited removal. and expeanut dieted re-- expedited removal is a removal order in itself. they don't have to see a judge. they come to the custody get a quick interview with the government hosting the travel document and remove them. the only time the hearing comes in effect they claim fear, or cis or immigration judge. if not an expedited removal

process. if we arrest them in the interior we can't do that. >> what percentage of otm do you have? do you have an average number in the holding detention facility? >> at the time, we started pilot we had approximately 34,000 in custody, we had approximately around 7 or 8,000otm. >> otm. so the rest are? >> citizens of mexico. >> and the 80% show up for this? >> oatd a.j. the bracelet, the appearance rate on that and other forms of reporting which could be telephonic reporting or the officer doing a bed check at the resident. we have 80% of the appearance rate. >> that leaves 20% didn't appear. >> yes, sir. >> how many people is that approximately? >> well, it's hard --

i can tell you -- that's what -- >> 10,000? , i mean, you are talking 400,000 people you process? >> yeah. actually we intake of 475,000 last year, removed 410,000. some are still fighting their cases. we have some cases that go through an immigration court and get a final order of removal and they'll appeal it to the bia, border of immigration appeals. they can go further in the appeal once more to the circuit court. we have a lot of aliens with final orders sitting in the beds we can't remove them because they have appeal pending. >> you have 400,000 plus. it's about 80,000 people never show back up. >> our current fugitive operation bag backlog, people order removed and fled have not been removed as 462,000. >> 462,000, and the news reports

or media reports 11 million illegal in the country. and somebody told me it's closer to 20 million. somebody else told me 30 million. >> well, i've heard 11 million figure. that's why i think what issa is doing smart, effective. and knowing we can remove 400,000 aliens, that's what we're staffed for and budgeted for, 400,000. i think a smart way to do that is going to be the first 400,000 we encounter, the first 400,000 in the dark. i think our policy of 0 focusing on the criminal alien, the threat to national security. i would like to think we can decide who the 400,000 they are going to be. the. more criminals, the safer our communities are. our policy is clear. let us decide who the 400,000 is going to be. let's make as many of them -- i mentioned earlier 225,000

criminal alien were removed last year. that's a significant impact on community safety. now, to mention the rethat's half the 400. >> 55%. and you look at the 410,00096% fell in. either they were 55% criminal aliens. the rest fugitive. the those ordered removed and reentered. >> and -- remain a main priority for us. we need to secure the border. >> and second illegal entry is a felony? >> if they were removed formally by ab an immigration judge they can be processed for a felony. reentrance after deordeportatio. >> do you agree with law

enforcement that -- coming out of mexico? >> i think the rise and the otm apprehensions are a vast majority are being smuggled by organizations operating out of mexico. >> okay. thank you. i have -- let's see. one last question. do you have one? >> thank you. when i was elloy, they gave me a daily report. i think it was a sheet of paper with the countries, i guess in the world; right in and a little space next to it. and every day somebody would fill out the report and write the number that were being held a that facility in that little space on the sheet of paper. is that, like, a daily report? >> i'm unfamiliar with that. that might be something that facility does. we track every alien in custody, who they are, how come they've

been there through electronic data base. >> i saw the people they were -- which all the countries that were represented in that facility, and knowing that from what i have seen we don't capture 100%, i mean, we don't. the one thing that bothered me the most was a number one next to the country afghanistan. i don't know why, but that just, i mean, it really played on me. i'm wondering if how many -- if we don't capture everybody, how many we didn't capture from that particular country. that's a concern to me, i'm sure a lot of other people. anyway, i guess that's why i stay awaking sometime at night when i think about the border and the problems we have there. operational controls often describe a strategy used by dhs

and cvp to describe the app rations and curing the u.s. borders. what do you view as a biggest threat to the security of the borders, mr. fisher? and we'll go down the line. >> the biggest threat would be those individuals that seek up wake up each and every day thinking about doing harm to the country. that's the number one threat and our strategy looks to target. >> what does that mean? >> your question had to do with evaluating threat and what the threat is? >> yeah. what do you think the biggest risk is? how are we responding? to give you an example, there was one person from afghanistan. and right now are fighting a war in afghanistan. common sense. why is somebody from afghanistan sneaking in to our country or trying to? they are being held in elloy prison at the time.

and then i hear we have 11 million illegals. and we're not 100% secure. you yourself said the border is not secure. and somebody wants to do us harm, is going exploit our weaknesses and weak point in the border. so my job, as the congressman, to protect this country my number one priority in the constitution. and you're telling me our border is not secure, and i would like to know what you think the biggest threat to this security of our borders is. and what risk, what, you know, can you give me a personality -- percentage? >> first, congressman, i share the same responsibilities as you. i, along with the other agencies took the oath. within the framework and the strategy which we implemented over the last couple of years specifically the threat that still, as you mentioned keeps me

up as well those individuals potential terrorists that are seeking entroy this country and do so between the port of entry. we build a strategy and try to minimize the likelihood those individuals if they are inclined to get to the country in that manner were to be detect and apprehend them when they do so. if you look at threats as vulnerability as established graphicly. i can give another example outside the west desert in arizona in a place like south texas, the border is separated by the rio grande valley in areas where we don't generally have a lot of detention capability and impediments like other places like 12 or 15-foot -- fences. we see those seeking entry is those in that valley. the vulnerability is the rio gran i did valley. >> mr. murphy? >> yes, sir. i believe it's terrorists and implements terror, and i think

one of the things that we have done is, again, we pushed our borders back both from air traffic the passengers we get. we know is coming. we know well inned a van of them boarding planes. we know what is coming from a cargo. we get that information in advance. at our land port of entry and rpm or or radiation dededuction twices we have done the most work there. we deny boarding 4200 people in 2012. these are potentially high-risk individuals that could have come to the country to do harm. >> 100% border security. we don't have it. one from afghanistan comes in. that's all it takes is one. >> thank you, sir. i carry a badge and gun for 29 years, i care about the security

of this country, and i think it's my job to protect the security of this country. i think the biggest threat is those that want to come and do harm. two different fashion, terrorism and hhsi division is investigations of an national security nature. i think also important is safety of the communities for those that come here and want to commit crimes not only enter the country illegally. i've been doing it for a long time. there was a time when a street agent we would arrest aliens because they are here in violation of law. at the end of the day what impact would i make? i'm arresting a person here illegally but hasn't committed another crime. there's a child predator walking out because we didn't have enough bed. this administration and i truly believe this, has done a lot for community safety by deploying

secure communities with i have virtual presence in every chance. they get arrested and fringier printed we're going take action and remove them from the country. the strategy issa built on prioritizing what we do, on national security threat, aliens and aliens threat to public safety. it makes sense to me. it's the right thing to do. if we can only -- as i said before, if we are built to remove 400,000 people,let name 400,000 count. i think what redoing now makes sense. i've been doing it 29 years. i think we're in a better spot now than in years. >> thank you very much. >> border patrol identified threats to border security from terrorism, drug smuggling, and illegal migration. the border patrol is working on developing some risk assessment tools to help us assess what the risks are and help inform the identification of resources, and

that is process right now. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank all of our witnesses from for taking time from their busy schedule. the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] it included ab amendment by republicans bob corker of tennessee, john of north dakota. that doubles the number of border patrol agents. that's more than 700 miles of u.s.-mexico border fencing. the members of congress will return from their holiday next week. the house will begin crafting a strategy to consider it own immigration bill. republicans to scheduled to meet behind closed door on july 10. in the senate members are expected to take up the issue of federally subsidizeed student loan. the rates doubled on the new loans. they will focus on annual

spending bills that fund the federal government. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2 and the house over on c-span. booktv in prime time continues tonight with "personal reflections" an a interview with ann romney. 8:15 former secretary of state weighs in on a i think are a of issues from the nuclear weapons and the economy. and issues on my mind. 9:15 pulitzer prize winner alice walker, at 10:00 former defense secretary rumsfeld. booktv in prime tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2.

>> my son had an -- i got a bill from an independent contractor if the service of danger from the hospital. the hospital swear it is has nothing do with the bill. i have to pay the independent contractor. everyone in the hotel business would love to do that. we can't. no one can do thing like that except health care. >> can't we? >> go a hotel. >> do 0 go to a different hotel. >> my television networking which i'm sure most people watch today. you would have seen ads for cancer centers. now, getting cancer not a voluntary act. what changed in health care, although we never talk about it when we have political debates most health care is now the result of a deliberate choice by the patient. >> [inaudible conversations] >> it would hurt our business if they did. we actually view it as a cure. [laughter]

and three out of four study confirm it . [laughter] you know, one, the reality is we talk about all health care the way we talk about a tire blowout on a he. -- highway. there's nothing you can do. your examples are often that. we know people who have been through it. it's not the part of health care today. the part of health care today where most of the money is being spent and all of the growth is chronic condition management, long-term treatment of things such as cancer, and the various replacements we now have. those all involve a decision that a customer makes. it's not voile tear. we managed to build in certain years and had to be centrally controlled. otherwise everybody would starve to death. health care changed. it's not what it was fifty years ago. this is the biggest industry in the country and in the developed world. it's something we use all the time. the idea that because you might

have a blowout on the highway we should govern the entire auto repair business is absurd. particularly since if you had a car blowout on a highway, a tire employeeout on the highway, the guy doesn't say let me see your net worth statement. steve documented how people do it in health care. they do it because they can get away with it. not because health care is so different from everything else. >> watch the entire hour-long debate posted by the manhattan institute and moderated by paul howard. former health careed a adviser to romney campaign. former hewlett packer chairman and ceo carly fiorina spoke monday.

this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] good afternoon, welcome to the national press club. my name is ankle bracelet angela. i'm a report we are bloomberg world. rethe world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to the future through programming with the event such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our westbound -- website www.press.org.

and if you hear applause in the audience, i note that members of the generally public are also attending. it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic on. i would like to welcome c-span and public radio. cow can follow it on twitter using #npc lunch. we'll have question and an period. i'll ask as many questions as time permits. it's time to introduce our head stable guests. from your right, kevin, retired u.s. navy captain now with the group. lynn cooper, weekly tk contributor to black enterprise and founder and chief officer. christopher chambers professor

of media studies at georgetown university. president and ceo of good 360. skipping over the podium. the national press club vice president and adjunct professor at george washington president. skipping over the speaker for a moment. washington bureau chief for bank rate.com. the national press club president and the speaker committee member who organized the event. thank you, marc. >> a free lane journalist covering business and technology and the chairwoman of freelance committee. [applause] [applause] our guest today enjoy a

fascinating and successful career involving technology, politics, and most recently as you will soon hear, philanthropy. as many of our national press club members know, one of the priorities here at the club is celebrate women's role in our society. i'm particularly pleased that our guest today, carly fiorina agreed to participate in the hiic launchen program. born in austin, texas. her own career began as a secretary working in a small business. what a journey she's had since then. as chairman and chief executive officer of hewlett-packard from 1999 to 2005, she was the first woman to lead a fortunate 20 company. for six straight years, chef named fortune magazine's most powerful women in business. it was during the tenure at hp the company acquired come pact

computer. shifted in favor of tablet and smartphone. politics is also been central to the speaker's work in recent years. having played key roles in the republican presidential campaigns of john mccain mitt romney. she ran unscufflely in a bid to unseat barbara boxer in california. she was triumph in the biggest battle of her life which was breast cancer. in a recent interview asking if she might run again she replied never say never. she dropped out of law school but made up more than made up for that by getting an mba from the university of maryland as well as master of science at myth. we should mention as well is secretary jewell is a best she's

chairman of good 360 described as the world's largest philanthropy organization. it was founded three decade ago. these items include clothing, books, toys, personal care products, officer and school supplies and computers among other things. we today will hear more about the work and please help me welcome to the national press club, carly fiorina. [applause] >> thank you, good afternoon. it's great to be with you to have met already some new friends and also see some old friends here as well. i was recently a

thought an entrepreneur was. in fact, a member of the prez corp. said to me, what is an innovator? i had to think about that for a moment. my answer an entrepreneur and innovator, is someone who can envision a different future. an entrepreneur is someone who dreenls -- dreams big and works long hours. an entrepreneur is someone who sees possibilities, and by seizing those possibilities creates possibilities for others. and because it's almost the fourth of july, i also thought on the way here about what makes this country great. what is so special about this country? as you heard in the introduction, i began my career as a young adult as a

secretary. i graduated from stanford university with a degree in mid evil history and philosophy. in the middle of a recession. [laughter] which meant that i was all dressed up and nowhere to go. [laughter] and so, like so many in my situation, i decided to go to law school with all due respect to all the lawyers in the room. the only thing is i hated law school. and so i quit after a single semester, in order to make a living, i went back to doing what i did while i was in college to pay my bills. i was a heck of a typist. i went back to work as a secretary. i typed, i filed, i answered the phones for a little nine-person company. i have traveled all over the world, and it is true, still, to this day, that it is only in the united states of america that a

young woman typing and filing for a nine-person firm can soon -- it only took twenty something years become the ceo of one of the largest companies on earth. that is only possible in the united states of america. [applause] and it is possible here not because i'm so special, it is possible here because this place is so special. it is so special because it was founded on a radical idea. an idea that was radical in the 1776, but it is still radical to this day. the idea is that every human being has potential. that everyone has the right to fulfill their potential. that it opportunity -- doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or what your last name

is. actually, all that matters is where you want to go. all matter is that you have potential. all that matters is how you envision your own future. that was a radical idea. it is a radical idea still, it is linked with power of entrepreneurship. entrepreneurship is the single greatest lever for fulfilling human potential, and for lifting people out of poverty that the world has ever known. and it is the genius of this country that we coupled political liberty with the opportunity to build your own future. to imagine your own future. to create something that you have a stake in so that you and

your family are better off. entrepreneurialism and innovation is a uniquely american gift. it is the secret sauce that makes this a special place. it is true because so many americans got their start exactly the way i did. i started out in a little nine-person firm. an entrepreneur and his partner started that firm because they wanted to imagine a different future for themselves, for their families, for their community. and one day while i was typing and filing at my desk after six month of working there, those two partner said, we've been watching you and we think you can do more than type and file. do you want to learn something about what we do? do you want to find out something about the world of business?

and because they took a change on me, because they saw possibilities in me i hadn't considered, i was able to envision a different future for myself. that happens in america every day in communities all across this great nation. wave after wave after wave of immigrant has gotten their start as entrepreneurs. and you don't have to be steady job to be an entrepreneur -- steve jobs. if you want to open the taco truck you are an entrepreneur. if you want to open the deli, the dry cleaner, whatever it is. you are creating a better future for yourself, your family, and by extension your community. wave after wave immigrant got their start there. women own small businesses. african-american own small businesses, hispanic own small business, asian-american small

own small business have been the fasting growing segment in this country. in other words this this great country where with redefined by our potential, it's entrepreneurialism that lifts people up. now while entrepreneurialism may be uniquely american, while it may be our country's genius to provide the opportunity to start your own business and imagine your own future, to -- innovation and entrepreneurialism, i think, is a fundamentally human thing. i know, this from my work with the one woman foundation. the one woman initiative when i founded six years ago. and through my work today with opportunity international, these are organizations that give a very, very small amount of credit to women in desperate circumstances. and what we know, what we have

found, is if you give someone the chance with just a little bit of must be, -- money, if you give someone the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families by building a business which they can own a stake in, progress happens. people lift themselves from poverty. entrepreneurialism is a human drive. it is in this country where it's seen the fullest. here we are on july 1st, 2013, what is the state of entrepreneurialism and innovation in this country? well, i actually think the data is a bit alarming. i think entrepreneurialism is in trouble in this country. allow me to give you a couple

statistics. there are more small and new businesses failing and fewer starting at this time than at any time in the last forty years. there are fewer small and new businesses starting and more failing than any time in the last forty years. this depressed state of entrepreneurialism, i believe, is why our economy is under performing. it is why our economy growsed at 1.7, 1.8, maybe 2%, maybe 2.5 percent. it's why our unemployment rate is stubbornly stuck and unacceptably high 6.something percent. if you look at the data you know that new and small businesses create two-thirds of the new jobs in this country, and employ half the people.

so if you have smaller, fewer small businesses starting, if you have more small businesses failing, you have an economy that is underperforming. and fewer people with the possibility of that first job, in my case, or perhaps a first change or a second chance. this was recently a survey published in "the washington post. in the survey 70%, 7-0 percent of small businesses said they felt government was hostile to their efforts. not neutral. hostile. if you ask people why, you get answers like, it's just too hard. it's too complicated. i don't know how many of you saw front page article in the "the

wall street journal" describing what is now known as they claimed was a risk avers culture in the united states. the article quoted many statistics when fundamentally it say this is place where people used to take pride in taking risk. now we are reluctant to do so. if you comb through the data and you find out people are saying you know what? the risk of failure is getting too high, and the reward for success is becoming too low. ..

>> is a regulation ever repealed. and the consequence of that is a geologic sentiment of complexity. this complexity, this thicket of regulation and taxation is literally, in my view and as represented by the data i just quoted as well as other pieces of data, is literally choking the entrepreneurial life out of our economy. and this is of grave concern or should be to everyone. from liberal to libertarian and everyone in between. i recently had the great pleasure to moderate a panel discussion of the clinton global initiative among three very impressive female entrepreneurs.

and as one of them noted, she said, you know, kids in school learn how to be employees. they don't learn how to be entrepreneurs. and i thought it was a really telling comment. how does washington work? well, you know, i grew up in big business, really big business. and i would say, again, not a partisan comment, i would say it is accurate to describe washington as a place that works well if you're big. if you're a big business, it works really well because, guess what? you can hire legions of attorneys and accountants and lobbyists. in fact, all that complexity helps a big business a lot of times. if you're a big trade association, if you represent lots of votes whether you're a union or a company or an association, washington works pretty well for you. because you have the resources and the time to wade through the

complexity, and let us speak the truth to, in some cases, manipulate that complicated environment to advantage you and your members. and if you are a politician, it's to your advantage as well. because now your job becomes to represent people and to help them navigate through this thicket of complexity. but washington doesn't work well if you're an innovator or entrepreneur who is so busy trying to build your future for yourself, for your family and for your community that you do not have the time or the resources to navigate your way through this thicket. and so what the data says is too many are just giving up. i'll never forget a luncheon that i had in denver, and i was talking to a group of small business owners, and i was

encouraging them to get more involved in the political process. it was a bipartisan group, and one of them finally said to me what was patently obvious. he said, carly, we're too busy. we don't have time. to figure it out. and, of course, an entrepreneur and an innovator, a small business owner, they don't have time. they are literally spending all of their time trying to make it work. you ever heard that story of the frog in the boiling water? you know, if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump out to save himself. but if you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn the water up to a boil, that frog will boil to death. it happens so gradually that he doesn't realize until it's too late. and i worry that we are

gradually, year after year after year, creating an environment that is similarly choking the life out of this entrepreneurial economy little by little, rule upon rule, regulation upon regulation. let's talk for a moment about the nature of bureaucracies. because bureaucracies matter here in washington. we're full of them. and because the big companies and the big associations and the big labor unions that do well in washington are also big bureaucracies. bureaucracies by their nature whether they're political or business, what characterizes a bureaucracy? it is a rules-based, tradition-bound institution that seeks to preserve itself and that over time rewards playing

by the rules rather than judgment and initiative. these are not pejorative comments i'm making. they are factual comments. a bureaucracy is a rules-based organization. again, whether it's business or politics. it is an organization that rewards playing by the rules. it is an organization that celebrates playing by the rules more than disruptive innovation. we have lots of bureaucracies, and over time what happens in bureaucracies whether they are in business or in politics, what happens in bureaucracies is they become inward looking, insulated. playing by the rules inside becomes more important than serving customers or constituents outside. and this, too, contributes to an environment where people not only lose faith in the

institutions which have become bureaucracies, but conclude that those bureaucracies are hostile. entrepreneurs give people a chance. entrepreneurs gave me my first chance. in some cases, entrepreneurs give people a second chance and a third chance and a fourth chance. and entrepreneurs aren't just about for-profit businesses. my whole life i have been animated by the opportunity to help fulfill potential in myself and in others. and it is why i am so proud to be associated with an organization like good 360 which recognizes that civic society also helps lift people out of poverty and helps them fulfill their potential. and so rather than just have waste go into landfill, we work with good-hearted and

smart-minded businesses with excess inventory and make sure that that inventory gets to people in need so that charities instead of worrying about whether or not their members or their needy constituents have diapers for that week can instead worry about helping those women. i'm proud to be associated with the national center for entrepreneurship and innovation, a group of like-minded people who believe that it is vital that we restore entrepreneurship as a shared and enduring value in america. it is why i am proud to be engaged in microfinance here and around the world to help give people a chance to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. so in the few minutes i have left, what do we do so we don't boil the frog to death? what do we do so that instead of choking the life out of this

entrepreneurial economy, out of this very special place we actually unlock the potential of all those frustrated entrepreneurs and innovators out there? well, i think there are four basic policy prescriptions. and while i have been some might say critical of washington, there are some small glimmers of hope here in washington right now. first, we need tax reform. and not just lowering rates, although that's important since our tax rates are now the highest in the world, but radical simplification. tax reform has bipartisan support now, but i am in particular heartened by the efforts of senator orrin hatch and max baucus, two good friends of mine and two good men who are starting with the fundamental notion that they are going to wipe out every loophole and deduction in the tax code. for years i have been saying the

only way to do this is to lower every rate and close every loophole. because, let's face it, the loopholes mostly benefit those in big. maybe there are a few loopholes that you would let come back in. but what hatch and baucus understand is if you say they all go, then the burden of proof is on those who must argue to put them back in. we not only need lower tax rates, we need radical simplification of this tax code to that an entrepreneur doesn't look at it and say, oh, my gosh, i can't possibly understand 26,000 pages and give up before they start. tax reform. we need immigration reform. we desperately need immigration reform. if you set aside the criminals who are coming in or the people who have broken our laws or the human traffickers, why is it that people come to this

country? because they envision a better life for themselves and their families. because they are desperate to imagine and create a different future than they have. and i hope that we are at a moment where bipartisan immigration reform is possible and where we recognize that our legal immigration system so fundamentally broken that we are hurting ourselves as a nation. this has to be the place forever and for always where hard working people all around the world say that's where i want to go, that's where i want to dream my dream and build something different for my future. third, i think we need zero-based budgeting. now, i know there's a lot of talk sometimes in washington about a balanced budget amendment. i think, actually, that that's less useful than saying we are going to ask every bureaucracy

in the united states government to literally justify every dollar that they spend. that's what we do in business. i know as a business person whether you're talking about a very small start-up or a very huge fortune 20 company this is true. if you give an organization more money year after year after year, their performance will deteriorate. it will not improve. because people lose the ability to prioritize. they lose the discipline to justify why they are spending money. they lose the incentive to explain clearly that they are trying to spend each and every dollar wisely and well. zero-based budgeting where congress has the opportunity to ask for justification for every dollar, and the transparency

that comes along with that. and believe me, it doesn't matter whether you're a liberal, a libertarian or somewhere in between, we would be shocked at what we are spending money on. if you doubt what i just said that more money doesn't mean better performance, think about what's going on in the veterans administration. it's not because people are ill meaning, it's just because the way a bureaucracy works works against performance sometimes. the budget of the veterans administration has increased 45% in the last five years, and we would all applaud that. and yet the waiting time for veterans to receive disabilities has gone from 260-something days in 2008 to 400-something days in 2013. ergo, more money isn't better performance. zero-based budgeting. and finally, i would create a task force of small business owners and entrepreneurs. i know, somehow we'd have to

keep their businesses going in the meantime. but their job would be to look at each and every regulation on books today. each and every one. and they would make recommendations about which to kill, which to modify. my guess is that we could do with at least 50% fewer regulations than we have today. it's not that regulation isn't important. of course it's important sometimes. but when literally no one knows how many we have, when literally no one knows which contradict others, when literally you can find virtually no one in this city who actually can say, yeah, yeah, yeah, i know all these regulations make sense, because how is it that regulations get put together? you know what happens, somebody finds a problem, and they say i need to fix that problem. and that particular problem may need fixed, and that particular regulation might make sense but, boy, you add it up with everything else over and over

and over time and pretty soon together none of it makes sense. we need a full-scale regulatory review. now, those policy prescriptions i do not think are partisan. you may or may not believe that they are possible. but as we approach the fourth of july, i would close by saying this: this is a unique nation in the course of human his arely. history. it is a unique nation in the course of human history because of that radical idea that everyone has potential, that everyone deserves the right to fulfill their potential, that everyone deserves a chance and maybe a second chance and a third chance or even a fourth chance. and the thing that makes that radical idea come to life in

addition to political liberties and protections is entrepreneurialism. the ability to imagine a future and then to build that a future. we have so many problems in this world and in this country where one in six people live in poverty today. we have so many opportunities to compete, to lead, to win. human capacity is limitless. but human potential is too rarely fulfilled. so on this fourth of july, what i am hoping is that in addition to the great founding fathers who had the genius to imagine this place, in addition to the veterans who have died and fallen and fought to preserve this place that we will celebrate the entrepreneurs and

the innovators who made this place. thank you so very much. [applause] thank you. >> thank you. you get to stay up here and answer a few questions. we've got a lot from our audience. you talked in your remarks about immigration reform calling for something to be done. do you support the comprehensive immigration reform package that the senate passed last week? >> so the short answer is, yes. i think it must be comprehensive. i think there are some things that the house can and should and hopefully will do before it passes something also in a bipartisan way. for example, i totally understand why people want

someone other than the federal government to say, yes, the border's secure. on the other hand, i think we're pouring enough resources out at the border based on the senate bill that it should be quite easy for a governor to say, yep, my border is secure. so i hope that people will recognize that reform by its nature always requires compromise. i hope that people on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers will not get too hung up on taking credit for anything but will instead conclude that as the chinese proverb says, success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan. and to embrace the fact that what we have today is the worst of all outcomes. we have to have reform. >> and on tax reform, we know

the housing market is still recovering from the crisis that set off the larger crisis that our economy's been in for a number of years. you talked about eliminating all of the tax credits and starting from scratch. that would, of course, include the mortgage deduction. how would that, if you eliminated the mortgage deduction, how would that keep the economy from going into another housing crisis? >> well, see, the nature of that question is a perfect illustration of why i say we should start with a blank slate and why i think baucus and hatch have it right. because, of course, there is a justification for virtually every deduction out there. and i can stand here and make a wonderful case for the home mortgage deduction, or i could also say that a mostly that deduction is most useful for people who have not just one home, but two homes. but the point is through a process of starting with a blank slate, now the burden of proof

is on who can muster the political will to put a loophole back in. maybe there will be enough political will to preserve the home mortgage deduction that it will be preserved. and that would be okay with me. but my bet is that 80-plus percent of the deductions and loopholes and complications in our tax rode today will -- code today will not be defended or preserved. and if we could get rid of 80% of them, that'd be huge progress in my mind. so it's the process that matters because it will cause a different outcome. than saying let's have a political process to debate who loses their deduction. that's a political free-for-all that will not end in the right outcome. >> questioner asks whether entrepreneurism and innovation are actually linked.

the questioner says much of the world, asia, africa, the middle east is overflowing with entrepreneurs and small business, but there's little innovation. on the other hand, israel has a stifling bureaucracy but lots of innovation. what's your take on that? >> i think it's a really interesting question. i think in part the question illustrates the link between democracy and innovation. and i believe there is a link. political liberty is linked to economic liberty. one of the reasons that china as an example has difficulty with innovation is because the innovations threaten the political institutions. one of the reasons that singapore now struggles with innovation is because their

society -- while there is much about their society and their nation that i deeply admire -- it is, by their own admission, a society that has celebrated conformity. innovation is not conformity. innovation is disruptive. innovation is by its nature revolutionary sometimes. disruptive, revolutionary ideas generally don't happen in a politically-constrained environment, and if they do, they are threatening in a politically-constrained environment. and that is why, to me, it is the genius of this place that political liberty and entrepreneurialism are two sides of the same coin, although both are a fundamental human yearning. >> there's been much reported recently regarding the government's handling of

personal data belonging to americans and others. president obama says he's trying to balance national security against privacy. how well do you think the administration is doing with that, and would individuals have any confidence that their best interests are being well guarded? >> so let me take it out of the context of president obama and his administration and generalize my answer a bit, because it is what i believe. remember the old saying absolute power corrupts absolutely? to me, the question that is raised by the nsa, the question that is raised by the irs is how is it that we should hold these vast, complex, opaque institutions accountable? how is it that effective

oversight is possible? how can we possibly know that if a few people with vast power whether it's honestly the federal reserve chairman or the head of the nsa or the -- how can we know that they are always competent, ethical, well meaning? the point is, i think we need a fundamental re-examination. i would hope on a bipartisan basis prompted by these events at nsa and irs. we need a fundamental re-examination of how do we conduct effective oversight. how do we hold these institutions accountable. and perhaps in the course of that fundamental re-examination we will conclude that sometimes there is just too much power invested in too few people, and

sometimes bureaucracies have simply become so large, so complex that they are unimaginable, and we -- unmanageable, and we need to do something different. those are the profound questions that i hope will be raised by these twin events this summer in washington. [applause] >> on the cybersecurity front, last fall when he was still defense secretary, leon panetta warned that the nation was facing the possibility of what he called a cyber pearl harbor. he said we're increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers, and they could put our nation's power grid, transportation systems, financial networks, etc., etc., at risk. is that true? and if so, why haven't we done a better job to protect against this threat since the solution probably involves a partnership between government and industry? >> so i think it is true.

i served for a time as the chair of the external advisory board at the cia and on the defense business board. i have top clearances. there is no question that the chinese invest heavily in hacking all kinds of things in this country from business to industry. there is no question that cyber espionage has been a tool of the chinese and others for some time. there is no question that it is the new front, the new face of 21st century economic as well as political conflict. i agree with the questioner that solving any one of these big problems requires private/public partnership, cooperation between

the private and the public sector, and i think there has been a fair amount of this. i'm also encouraged by the fact that there is a huge community of entrepreneurs here in the northern virginia area who are focused on the cybersecurity threat and from whom we might over time see some terrific inventions that will help keep us ahead of this threat. but the first step towards solving a problem is always to speak it. [laughter] publicly. so i'm encouraged that we are actually saying publicly we have a problem. china is part of the problem. and by the way, they're -- whatever you think of the nsa program -- there is no equivalence between what the chinese are doing in this country and around the world and the in, sa program -- and the nsa program. and so let us not allow anyone in this country or around the

world to say, well, see? the u.s. are doing it too. it is not equivalent. >> a young person in our audience asks how have you combined passions in the for-profit world and nonprofit world, and how would you suggest those of us who are beginning our careers balance both of those? >> so, you know, one of the things that i find so encouraging is the number of young people who are going into what are known today as social enterprises. enterprises that aren't exactly for profit, aren't exactly not for profit, but are something in between. they are investment opportunities that are focused on achieving not only success, but doing good. the truth is that there are too

many businesses that miss the opportunity to do good while they are doing well. and there are all kinds of opportunities in business to do good while at the same time doing well. it's true of the corporate partners we have at good 360, companies that are doing well but also doing good. we had a whole series of investments when i was at hp that was really focused on building communities, doing good in the community, but we got something out of that too. in better employees, better partners, better customers. so businesses can do well and do good. it's likewise true that there are some philanthropies and charities that are animated by passion but are not sufficiently disciplined about how they run their operations. and if you are trying to do good in a community with donors'

money, you need to be thinking really hard about spending every single dollar wisely and well. and so the discipline that comes from business, i think, is incredibly helpful in philanthropy, and the heart of philanthropy, i think, is helpful in business. to a young person i would say this, i mean, my life is not exactly the right road map. i can tell you my parents were exceedingly concerned when i dropped out of law school. they were concerned again when i went back to work as a secretary. they were really near panic stricken when i quit that job after a year and ran away to italy to teach english. [laughter] so, but here's what i would say if you're a young person. don't worry too much about what your first job is. work hard at every job. there is no substitute for hard work. and the person who is most likely to get promoted wherever you're working is the person who's doing a really good job at the job they have.

but find where your heart is. what excites you? what do you have fun at? what's your passion? because you're not going to be any good at something that doesn't really get you going in the morning. >> you noted there's a new opportunity because you now live in virginia. we're here at the national press club where we like to make news -- [laughter] so tell us if you have any interest in trying again for elective office. >> sorry, i won't make news today. [laughter] but i do believe never say never. i have a wonderful opportunity

in my life. as was mentioned in the introduction, i'm a cancer survivor. we lost a daughter in the last several years. i know how fortunate i have been in many i -- in my life and how blessed family has been. and i know how short life can be. and so for me now it is about how do i make the biggest contribution i can in the thing that gets me going in the morning, which is to unlock human potential, help people unlock their potential. so for me that's about can i be associated with not-for-profits that help do that, can i help restore the entrepreneurial spirit in this country, can i help women fulfill their potential, women, the most underutilized resource in the world. can i help develop leadership and organizational capacity with those organizations that i work with?

and i have also always believed that when opportunity knocks, you need to answer the door. so never say never. [laughter] [applause] >> that leads in well to the next question which is sheryl sandberg's book and the advice it contains to "lean in" has generated controversy this year, perhaps more than ms. sandberg anticipated. as someone who's made empowering women a priority, what's your take on what she had to say? >> so sheryl sandberg is a good friend of mine, and good for her that she has decided to spend her time and her talent and her money to help inspire other women. there are some things that i disagree with her on, however. one of the things that was kindly mentioned in my introdo you think, you know, i was

number one most powerful woman in business for six years in a row, it was a great honor, of course. but every year i would say to the editors and publishers of "fortune" magazine, why are you doing this? why are you rank ordering women 31-50 -- 1-50? if you want to celebrate women, wonderful. good. but don't rank order us like business is, you know, the golf ladder or the tennis ladder. this isn't sports, this is the game of life. and in the game of life and the game of business, it's better when everybody gets to play. the thing where i disagree with sheryl is i think it is about women and men, but let's talk about women for a moment. fulfilling their potential. sometimes it is true women become risk averse. they don't want to take a chance on a job they've never done. i know when i took various jobs,

people would always say to me don't take that job. don't take that job. i mean, it's too risky. you might fail. what i found out was that when you go into a job that's really messed up, if you fix it, people notice. [laughter] so it's true that sometimes women are risk averse, but on the other hand some women don't have the opportunity to take a risk. they're single mothers trying to raise a couple kids. they don't get to take a risk. they have to think about other things too. sometimes men are not willing to take a risk by hiring someone who's different from them or listening to someone who has a different point of view. i think feminism is when every woman and any woman has the opportunity and the tools and the chance to live the life she chooses. not every woman will choose to

become a ceo. some woman, some women decide to give back to their communities in ways that are unheralded and unsung and yet have a huge difference can. feminism is when every woman has the opportunity and the tools and the chance to live the life that she chooses. whether or not men approve or would make the same choice. [applause] >> there may be more women ceos, a few more women, but technology management and boards are still dominated by men, mostly white men. do you think this will change in the next ten years? why or why not? >> so it's an interesting dichotomy, actually, when you look at american business today. on the one hand, when i became the ceo of hewlett-packard, i was the only woman running a fortune 50 company, actually. and, you know, the press

attention, the scrutiny and criticism were unbelievable, unanticipated by me as well. today ibm's run by a woman. hewlett-packard's a run by a woman. yahoo!'s run by a woman. xerox is run by a woman. pepsi's run by a woman. the list goes on and on. it's wonderful. and yet, and yet less than 20% of board members are women or people of color, and that statistic hasn't moved in ten-plus years. it is true that technology is still dominated by men. it is true that the financial sector is still dominated by men. so it's funny, because on the one hand progress, on the other hand, not so much progress. and i think the reason is because we're coming up against it. it is no longer that there aren't qualified people in the pipeline, it's -- remember, it used to be, well, they're not qualified, okay?

then it was they didn't have enough experience. it's not that. i think now we're coming up against what it really is. and what it really is, is people have to take a risk. they have to take a risk on someone they don't know. they have to take a risk on someone who thinks differently than they do. they have to take a risk on someone who will challenge them. they have to be prepared to have an environment that is sometimes uncomfortable. but, you see, i think diversity is a business imperative. it's not a nice to do anymore, although many people think it is. it's about being inclusive, it's about doing the right things, yes. but more fundamentally it's a business imperative. it's a competitiveness imperative. i know. i've sat around lots of tables where decisions were made. all kinds of tables with all kinds of people. and i will guarantee you this,

if you have a group of people that is mostly alike, they think alike, they look alike, they probably have known each other for a while, you're going to make a decision. but it will not be as good a decision as one that is made by a group of people that are different from each other. and challenge each other. and by the way, that decision-making process is going to be a little messier, a little harder, there's going to be some conflict. but you're going to end up at a better place because you will consider more alternatives. this is china's great vulnerability going forward. they all think alike. at least those in power. so i earnestly hope that it will get better in ten years, but i believe it will not truly get better until people understand this isn't about a nice to do. this is about we have to do it to perform at our best. as a nation, as companies.

[applause] >> we are almost out of time. but before asking the last question, just a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i'd like to remind you of our up-next luncheon speaker who's jim rogers the president and ceo of duke energy on august 8th. secondly, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] and for the last question, let's go back to your speech. you've worn a lot of hats during your life so far, and you've seen regulations from many different angles. if you could choose one, only one, federal regulation to rescind, what would it be? >> only one? >> just one. [laughter] >> it's probably cheating to say, you see, that's the wrong question. [laughter] it's not the one that's the

problem. it's the hundreds of thousands that's the problem. so i don't know how to answer that question. but what i guess if i had to wave a magic wand, here's what i would wish for: i would wish that our elected representatives would come to this city every day and instead of thinking about all the people that they think about who have offices here in town, they would come to work every day and think what am i going to do today to help unleash and unlock entrepreneurial potential? what one regulation should i get rid of? i can't think of one, but they know what they are. thank you so much. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you for coming today. thank you to our audience. i would also like to thank the national press club staff including our journalism institute and broadcast center for helping organize today's event. finally, here's a reminder, you can find more information about the national press club on our web site, and if you would like a copy of today's program, please check out the web site at www.press.org. thank you, we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> in her comments, carly fiorina called for a simplification of the tax code. last week senators max baucus and orrin hatch, the chairman and top republican on the finance committee, announced their plan to overhaul the nation's tax code on what's

being called a zero plan. under their plan all corporate and personal income laws would be scrapped unless lawmakers make the case by the end of july for them to be included. when house members return next week, they will be looking at crafting a strategy to consider their own immigration bill. this following the passage of immigration in the senate last week. house republicans are scheduled to meet behind closed doors july 10th to map out a plan. in the senate members are expected to take up the issue of federally-subsidized student loans. the rates doubled july 1st for new loans. for the rest of the month, the house and senate pretty much will be focusing on annual spending bills that fund the federal government. both house and senate returning next week, next monday. the senate here on c-span2 and the house on c-span. booktv in prime time continues tonight with personal reflections. beginning at 8 eastern, an interview with ann romney on her book, "the rom tony family table: sharing home-cooked recipes and favorite traditions." at 8:15, former secretary of

state george shultz weighs in on nuclear weapons and the economy, energy development and issues on my mind. at 9:15 is, pulitzer prize winner alice walker and a collection of personal essays, letters and poems. and at 10, former defense secretary donald rumsfeld discusses "rumsfeld rules: leadership lessons in business, politics, war and life." it's booktv tonight in prime time beginning at 8 here on c-span2. tonight on c-span we'll bring you a discussion about mass shootings and how mental illness appears to play a role in them. jeff swanson, from duke university, takes a look at the nation's gun laws and talks about appropriate medical and legal social responses. >> so if we think about mass shootings, i think there's a, probably a compelling case that you can make that mental illness is quite involved in mass shootings. so a mother jones magazine

analysis of 62 mass shootings looking at the record and, you know, that might relate to press reports but also some of the court documents, you suggested that most mass shootings involved some degree of mental illness. and i think if we think about some of the most prominent recent mass shootings from adam lanza to jared loughner, the tucson shooter, there was a significant record of mental illness in a number of those shootings. but when we think about everyday shootings, everyday gun crimes, we see that people who are, have serious mental illness tend to commit crimes at a lower rate than the overall population. has a serious mental -- illness. so they're responsible for a

lower portion of crime than their portion of the population. and likewise, when you look at crimes with weapons which, you know, most times will mean guns, again, crimes committed by people who are mentally ill is underrepresented. and, you know, what i think it's worth pausing for a moment to think about how does this fit in, how does the u.s. fit into this picture of everyday shootings. you know, we may not have a gun crime problem that, where the mental illness component is exceptional, but the gun crime problem in the u.s. is exceptional. we're not a uniquely criminal society, we're not a uniquely violent society, but we are a uniquely deadly society. the level of homicide in the u.s. is especially unusual when you compare it to similar countries. so we ve a times higher

roughly than comparable countries and firearm homicide which is 72% of homicides in the u.s. involve firearms which is, which is way, way higher. so we do have a big and an exceptional and a strange gun crime problem, but when we think about these everyday shootings, mental illness doesn't seem to be deeply involved in it. >> and you can watch that entire event hosted by stanford university's center for ethics in society tonight at 10:30 eastern over on c-span. >> out of those buildings we can see a sea of humanity coming from union station, and we knew it was going to be big. we were supposed to be leading the march, but people were already marching. it was like saying there go my

people. let me catch up. [laughter] and this sea of humanity just pushed us, pushed us. so we just walked on and started moving toward the washington monument, on toward the lincoln memorial. it was a wonderful period, i think, in american history. >> this fourth of july on c-span at 2:20 p.m. eastern civil rights pioneer congressman john lewis shares his experience on the march on washington 50 years later. and at 4:45 some of the places that we visited and historians we've spoken with during the first season of our series on first ladies, a little after 7 pulitzer prize-winning photographers display their work and talk about coverage of their events. at 8 p.m., bill clinton and chris christie discuss natural disaster, and at 8:45 a panel talks about what it is to be a

modern-day citizen. national religious leaders yesterday held a press conference calling for expanded religious liberty protections under the health and human services department's mandate on contraception. the 2010 health care law requires most employers to provide employees access to free contraception. last week the obama administration issued its final rules removing religiously-affiliated employers from the process of paying their employees' contraception coverage. this is 40 minutes. >> the united states conference of catholic bishops. we thank you for being here today as we release standing together for religious freedom. this important open letter to all americans about our united efforts for religious liberty. our panelists reflect people of different religions who share a common concern; protection of conscience and upholding the first amendment's guarantee that americans can live according to their religious principles.

our speakers are dr. russell moore, president of the ethics and religious liberty commission of the southern baptist convention, archbishop william lori of baltimore, chairman of the ad hoc committee on religious liberty, anne hendershott, ph.d., professor of sociology at francis can university of steubenville, ohio, and yuri mantilla, associate professor at university school of law and member of the national hispanic christian leadership conference's board of directors. each panelist will speak a few words, and then we'll open the program for questions. dr. moore? >> thank you, sister walsh. hello, my name is russell moore, president of the southern baptist religious liberty commission. our first freedom of religious liberty is rarely challenged with the sudden shock and awe tactic. instead, from the very beginning such incursions on religious

liberty happen in this country from the pen of a bureaucrat rather than from the barrel of a tank. my baptist forebearers objected in the revolutionary and postrevolutionary era to the state licensing preachers to preach the gospel, and this was, the government said, simply a matter of paperwork. the state license, though, was about more than just a fee and a piece of paper. it was about a government that had overstepped its bounds. whatever our challenges, america has always returned back to the founding principles of this new republic, that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not government grants handed out to the deserving in the minds of the government. religious liberty and freedom of conscience are inalienable rights granted by the creator or, and these natural rights belong to all persons, not just those who are in in the majority of the ambient culture. americans are planning to gather this week for cookouts, picnics and fireworks to mark yet

another independence day. we, a broad coalition of religious leaders, mark this week by calling our government back to our first freedom, the free exercise of religion for all persons. the health and human services contraceptive mandate has catalyzed this coalition. this mandate imposes heavy fines and legal penalties on organizations and businesses and individuals which do not participate in the provision of contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs. the issue here is not contraception or abortion. we wouldn't all agree on those questions ourselves in this coalition. at issue is the callous disregard our government has shown for the freedom of americans to exercise their religious convictions. we love and respect our president, president obama, and our national leaders, and we have appealed as citizens for the administration to respect conscience rights.

in response government has given us word games and accounting tricks. that amount to really the same mandate repeated over and over and over again. but we're not so easily hypnotized by bureaucratic parlor tricks. our government has treated the free exercise of religion in this case as if it were a tattered house standing in the way of a government construction of a railroad. there to be bought off or plowed out of the way in the name of progress. we dissent from that. as a preacher of the gospel of jesus christ, sole liberty for me is about more than a political principle. i believe, as my lord commands, that we should render unto caesar that which belongs to caesar. but the conscience does not bear the image of caesar and cannot be swept into the federal treasury by government fiat. we cannot accept the theology lesson the government has sought to teach us that religion is

simply a matter who matter of wt happens during the scheduled times of our worship services and is left there in the foyer during the rest of the week. our religious convictions aren't reduced to simply the opinions we hide in our hearts or sing in our hymns. our religious convictions inform the way we live. we support freedom of conscience not only for ourselves, but for all persons. one of the reasons we oppose this sort of incursion on the free exercise of religion is that we want neither to be oppressed, nor to oppress others. we do not ask the government to bless our doctrinal convictions or to impose them on others. we simply ask the government not to set itself up as lord of our consciences. many americans will disagree with us heartily about the things we believe. but even americans of no religious faith at all have an interest in the protection of these liberties. do we really want the sort of civil society in which the consciences of the people are so

easily swept aside by government action? if the federal government can force organizations and businesses to pave over their own consciences to choose between being believers and being citizens, what will stop the government from imposing its will on your conscience next -- next? so we call on the department of health and human services to at the very least expand conscience protections under the mandate to cover any organization or individual with religious or moral objections to covering, providing for or enabling access to the mandated drugs and services. we ask congress to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, and we call on americans to remember the great cost this country has endured in order to achieve religious liberty and freedom of conscience in order that we might continue these blood-bought rights for ourselves and our posterity. the archbishop will, please,

forgive me if i quote martin luther who stirred no little controversy between our traditions sometime ago, but nonetheless i think that he and i can agree on his words a as they apply to our government and to its audacity in curtailing religious freedom in this case. to go against conscience is neither right, nor safe. here we stand, we can do no other. god help us. thank you. >> thank you, dr. moore. archbishop lori. >> thank you so much, dr. moore and sister mary ann. let me say for the record that your quotation from martin luther is fully accepted, to thank you. you know, we're grateful to see so many leaders of other denominations and faiths including southern baptists, the church of jesus christ of latter day saints, the national

hispanic christian leadership conference, the international society for christian -- conscienceness and orthodox christian and jewish leaders as well as leaders of faith-based and civil right organizations all come together to sign a statement supporting religious freedom. the letter itself states that, and i quote: many of the signatories on this letter do not hold doctrinal objections to the use of contraception. yet we stand united in protest to this mandate recognizing the encroachment on the conscience of our fellow citizens. as the catholic bishops have said from the beginning, the underlying issue with the hhs mandate is not about any specific teaching. in fact, other signatories on

the letter do not share our view on contraception and probably disagree with us in many other ways. but they understand the core religious freedom issue at stake here. it is fitting that this statement has been released during the fortnight for freedom which has been embraced by catholics and people of many faiths as a show of great respect for religious freedom in the two week period that leads up to to this thursday independence day. it's also fitting that the final rule on the hhs mandate was issued during the fortnight since we are especially attentive to religious freedom at this time. sadly, the mandate divides our church into three separate camps.

houses of worship on the one hand, accommodated religious institutions on the other, and in addition to that, for-profit entities run by religious believers. we in the catholic church have never seen such a distinction between what we do within the walls of a church and how we serve our neighbors. the faith by which we worship on sunday is the very certain faith by which we act in the world the other six days of the week. under the now-finalized rule, for-profit institutions still receive no relief or accommodation at all except for the relief that many of them have been able to attain so far in the courts by way of preliminary injunctions or

temporary restraining orders against the mandate. as cardinal dolan stated on friday, we appreciate the extension of the effective date by five months, meaning that the effective date of the mandate for accommodated religious nonprofit institutions is now january the 1st, 2014. also as noted on friday, the united states conference of catholic bishops is still analyzing the specifics of the accommodation. ..

in detail on march the 20th. in addition to this ongoing analysis, the usccb will continue to seek relief from the courts and from the congress as appropriate. notably just recently, senators deb fisher and tom coburn introduced legislation in the u.s. senate called the health care conscious rights act, which would provide the legislative fix to the mandate for those who object because of moral or religious convictions.

senate bill 1204 at is the identical companion bill to h.r. 940. legislation introduced in the house earlier this year by congresswoman diane black and others. once again, we are pleased to stand with so many partners from other faith traditions in raising continued awareness over religious liberty concerns and the hhs mandate. those present today and the statement we have signed underscores that this is about religious freedom, the religious freedom enjoyed by people of all faiths and of no faith at all. something that we all hold dear as americans and something most worthy of preserving and

defending. thank you so so much. >> thank you archbishop lori. now a doctor hendershott. >> i am anne hendershott and i'm a sociologist who has spent the last 20 years working in religious colleges, teaching sociology. i was thrilled to be able to do that over these 20 years because i knew that mike conscious rights would always be respected as a pro-life catholic i was happy to be able to teach in an environment where i would not have to compromise my beliefs to supervise student internships in places like planned parenthood or other abortion providers. i knew that i would never be asked to compromise my beliefs. unfortunately the obama administration's health services mandate on preventive services now threatened those very protections.

the hhs mandate requires that all organizations including religious ones like catholic colleges that i have taught in and currently teach in, provide insurance coverage that includes abortion inducing drugs like plan b contraceptives and sterilization procedures. this mandate will require me as a faithful catholic to purchase insurance that might church teaches is seriously immoral. the mandate forces me and my religious employer to pay for or facilitate access to products and services that are in opposition to our deeply held moral and religious beliefs. the mandate also allows the minor children of employees of accommodated religious institutions like my college to avail themselves of contraceptives, sterilization or drugs without their parents knowledge. because such information will

not appear on parents claim statements at the end of each month. last year my current employer, the other franciscan university of steubenville became the first university in the country to drop its requirement for student health insurance due to moral and economic concerns connected to the hhs mandate. father terrance henry, then the president of franciscan university submitted a public statement protesting the new guidelines from hhs to force catholic institutions to choose between following their faith or providing health coverage in their employee and student health clinics. in the statement father henry wrote that by making this issue coverage mandatory our government has violated the conscience of people of faith and infringed on our rights to practice their religious beliefs. in may of 2012 franciscans sued the federal government saying that the hhs mandate constituted

a grave threat to franciscan university's ability to continue to teach from the heart of the church. at that time france's skin was one of 12 lawsuits filed by 43 organizations, including the university of notre dame and other catholic colleges and universities. there are now over 60 total lawsuits against the total mandate brought a family-owned businesses and hath brought by nonprofit religious institutions. fortunately of those cases on behalf of family businesses that have received early rulings on the religious freedom issue the vast majority, almost 80% of plaintiffs have been awarded temporary hault to the mandate. unfortunately though on the nonprofit side many of the cases including franciscan university's case have been dismissed without prejudice because the courts have claimed that the religious institutions have not yet been injured either the mandate. those of us who work on catholic campuses or other christian

institutions disagreed. we have already been injured by the sun just mandate because our constitutional right to religious freedom has already been compromised. the refusal by the obama administration to classify religious institutions like franciscan or notre dame as religious employers has already compromised our religious rights. there is every indication this will escalate. refusing to count franciscan and notre dame and other catholic colleges and christian colleges as religious employers the state can target us as they have done to catholic adoption agencies that won't place children with same-sex couples. unless catholic colleges and universities and christian colleges are given some assurance that their religious liberty will be protected the threats will continue. rejecting our claims for religious liberty it is likely than in a misguided attempt to protect women's rights we will be forced to facilitator

students participation in things like student internships at the clinic's of abortion providers. similarly catholic colleges and universities may be forced to accept as leaders those who openly disavow the catholic faith. or are hostile to the catholic faith. analogous situations have arisen in other schools but if we protest some religious liberty grounds we will be told yet again that we have no right to protest because we are not religious institutions. a current obama appointee to the eeoc recently wrote that when it came to or women's rights she was having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win. we are already at a place where the establishment clause has shifted from a legitimate desire to keep the government from entangling itself in the internal affairs of a religious organization to a justification of anti-religious secularism of pushing a religion out of the public square and this threatens

the people of all faiths. >> thank you dr. hendershott and our final speaker is dr. mantilla. >> thank you very much. according to the first amendment of the american constitution congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. religious freedom is one of our most important civil rights. however it is not only a civil right in the united states. it is also a globally recognized universal and fundamental norm of human rights law. article xviii of the universal declaration of human rights says everyone has the right to freedom of thought conscience and religion. these rights include freedom to change his religion or belief and the freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in

teaching practice, worship and observance. the right to religious freedom has not only been one of the cornerstones of the american legal system, it has also been a priority of the united states foreign-policy to foreign policy to promote and defend its fundamental human rights around the world. for example during the cold war the defense of international religious freedom enabled the united states to effectively show the importance of respect for democracy and human rights. despite the end of the cold war, violations of religious freedom around the world have still been widespread. continue to undermine the right to religious freedom in many regions and many countries. however, there are other forms of violations of religious freedom. although they are not as brutal and systematic as the ones in totalitarian regimes, they are

also unjust and they should not happen. this is the case of the end date which forces religious believers to make a choice between obeying the law and violating deeply held religious beliefs or open a fundamental religious and moral norms and disobeying the government mandate. american religious institutions, family-owned businesses and private persons should not be forced to pay for drugs and services which violate their deeply held convictions. american religious institutions family-owned businesses and individuals should not pay fines to uphold their religious ideas. violations of religious freedom in the united states and abroad are unacceptable. this is especially the case when they involve the provision of innocent human life such as in the case of the mandate which includes a warsh and inducing

drugs. a government which undermines religious freedom norms in its own jurisdiction cannot lead the cause of religious freedom globally. it is time to restore the great american tradition of respect for religious freedom as a fundamental civil right. if this happens, then america will once again be able to become a leader in the local cause for the defense of religious freedom as a universal and fundamental human right. >> thank you dr. mantilla. we are now open to questions. if you have a question please raise your hand. when you are called upon, please speak into the microphone, state your name your agency and to whom you you're addressing your question and finally your question. >> michael winters national catholic reporter on a

two-parter of four archbishop said three. will compliance mandates and if so do you anticipate closing ministries if the mandate takes effect and if not why it's so much money and time being spent on this campaign and for a reverend moore as you know many people have religiously-based conscious objections to the civil rights act and the segregation laws. why is the situation with with the mandate different from that especially regarding private for-profit employers? >> first of all, particularly you have to recognize what the mandate does on a national level because it's different than the one obtained before. and that is to create a sort of a three-tiered religious system. you have got exempt houses of worship. you have accommodated institutions and you have private for-profit conscientious individual business owners.

bad state of affairs did not exist. bad state of affairs sets up a new situation for a religion in the united states. that alone, that changed is worth spending a lot of time on. it's important also to recognize that the suits that have been brought have not been brought through the conference. they have rather been brought by a whole array of institutions, universities, charities, publishing houses and the like, because these organizations and these individuals have recognized that their religious liberty is at stake. regarding the question of the accommodation, it's a 110 page rule.

there are a lot of intricacies and it. until now we have been dealing with two previous iterations of the rule. now we have the final rule and we will subject that too intense study and work is getting underway now. >> the reason that we would support the civil rights legislation that you mentioned and the difference from this sort of mandate from that legislation i believe can be found in the founding era in the words of the deck ration of independence and communicated in the constitution of rights that are held self-evident. we believe that what was happening that is being addressed in the civil rights movement was the oppression of people by an anarchic system and the american south particularly that ran counter to the natural rights and human dignity of persons protected in the constitution. what is happening here is that you have a government not allowing people to maintain a

sense of human dignity and free exercise of religion, which is also guaranteed in the united states constitution and it is a natural right right so we believe there's great continuity between the civil rights movement and our standing together to say we believe in free exercise of religion and freedom for all persons, not just for ourselves. >> yes, sir. >> the christian pose. in a letter u.s. for an expansion of the exemption but it doesn't specify how far the extension should go like archbishop lori was mentioning you also have the for-profit companies. are you asking for the extension to be expanded that far or it just as far as the organizations that you represent? secondly is there anything you can tell me about the timing of friday's announcement of the final rules. did that come as a surprise when

it came or were you expecting it or was it early or were you expecting it later or anything? >> to whom are you addressing your question? >> whoever can answer it. >> i will take a crack at it and dr. lori and if anyone else would like to take a crack at it that would be great. you know, for the last 40 years under the church amendment, a great latitude has been given to private business owners and to religious organizations in matters of religious conscience and health care. and it is that latitude that we are now moving away from and it's really 1 -- what one might call the status quo. ideally that would certainly be, we would like to see that restored. failing that certainly something much more ample than we see now.

our concern for our institutions is a concern to serve, to be able to do our ministries of justice and charity and education and health care according to our own rights, according to our own teaching but our concern is also broader than even that. it extends to conscientious private individuals but this religious freedom adheres first and foremost in the individual. pope francis recently said we are to be not part-time christians but full-time christians and so we want people of belief and of conscience to be able to run their businesses and their daily activities according to christian principles should they choose to do so. and so, that is the extent we would like to see it go to. >> i would agree with the archbishop on that and to note

the frustrating irony of the government seeking to tell us what religion is twin churches in this country for 200 years, over 200 years, had been serving as the archbishop mentioned not only in work but also indeed in ways that are rooted and grounded precisely in our religious convictions. that is a frustrating place to be at this point. >> i am tom howell with the washington times. this question can be for anyone. i know some of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit settlement filed mechanics -- distinction between emergency contraception versus traditional contraception. can you talk about why that distinction might be important in this debate and why you define emerged as a contraception as abortion inducing drugs? >> well there is not a doctor among us up here or a medical

moral professional, but i would say that what has been approved under the mandate are all fda approved contraceptives, but in particular alibi its own manufacture and by most of the scientific accounts has been shown to induce an early abortion. certainly, if you believe there is a human life there and you believe it's been taken it is being taken unjustly, that rings you beyond the realm of contraception into abortion already and that is problematic. very problematic for a lot of people. >> and the issue of course is rotter then simply that of contraception in any of these

forms. there are many persons of faith and others who are part of this coalition who would have widely divergent views on contraception and abortion and other things. we think the issue here is the principle conscience of free exercise of religion and so there are many who would be standing with others in following their own religious convictions and would not necessarily hold the same. >> my question is for the archbishop dr. moore. if you are saying religious company should have religious freedom in a sense are you setting up a situation in which the employee's religious freedom is against the employer's religious freedom and why should the government stepped in and say okay i'm going to side with the employer rather than the employee?

>> well we don't believe the status quo restricted the freedom of employees. what we are asking is for employers not to be coerced into participating in the purchase of devices and technologies to which they have a religious objection. we don't believe that restricts religious liberty on the part of the employees especially not in an american culture with contraceptive devices and medications as available as they are. instead we believe this compromises the freedom of conscience of those employers. >> i would just say too plan a prospective employee signs on to say a church institution or a business that is being run consciously, intentionally as a christian institution one understands there is a kind of emission bear. there is kind of an ethos there and i've think those employers are pretty upfront about that.

right at the beginning. and so it's always a persons choice whether he or she wants to sign on to such a thing or not. >> i just wanted to know what the next step is after this open letter? are there more plants to do specific things now that you have distributed this letter? >> i think we have begun an ongoing conversation with one another and with the broader outside community about these things. we are not going to back down on this question. i think the government has been the waiting us out for some time thinking that roman catholics and evangelical sent others who are opposed to these things will somehow go away. we are not going away. we are going to continue to speak to this and i think the

next step is to ask the administration again to reconsider as we have in this letter and also to work with members of congress toward a legislative solution. >> this is sort of a follow-up to the previous question. how do you respond to the government's argument that there is a difference between individuals and corporations and that while the individual owners of a corporation or a business have religious rights protected by the first amendment, for-profit secular corporations does not? >> i would think that first of all it's always been understood that individuals in our country

has been able to run for-profit corporations according to christian principles. wouldn't it be a shame if that suddenly became impossible to do? we are speaking analogously. we are speaking by way of comparison but corporations do have a kind of an identity. they do have even under the law, a form of what one might call personhood. that is certainly very true also of church institutions. by which the character of the enterprise is shaped and designed and we would certainly like to see that respected. >> if there are no more questions, thank you and happy writing and happy reporting.

>> thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> the white house yesterday announced a delay until 2015 of the requirement of the health care law that requires businesses with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance to its employees or face a $2000 per employee fine. the central provision of that health care law requires americans to obtain health insurance. that will go into effect at the start of 2014. ahead here on c-span2 booktv in prime-time continues tonight with personal reflections beginning at 8:00 eastern read an interview with and romney on her books around the family table sharing home-cooked recipes and favorite traditions.

>> became out of those buildings and we could see the fear of humanity coming from union station. and we knew was going to be big. we were supposed to be leading the march yet people were arbor day marching. it was like saying there go my people, let me catch up with them. [laughter] and this sea of humanity just pushed us, pushed us so we just locked arms and started moving

toward the washington monument on towards the lincoln memorial. it was a wonderful era i think in american history. earlier today during the weekly question time british prime minister david cameron responded to questions about the u.k. response to protests in egypt. violence has escalated in the

country ahead of tomorrow's deadline which military leaders have given president morsi 48 hours to resolve differences with the egyptian people before the military takes control and implements its own plans for the country. >> mr. speaker i am sure i speak for everyone in this house when i say there is deep concern in egypt of including an appalling violence and deaths just a year on from free elections. can i began by asking the prime minister for insurance is that all the appropriate steps are being taken by the government to guarantee the safety of u.k. nationalists in that country? >> i can certainly give him that assurance and also to safeguard our embassy in cairo and i should also add that we are uprising british nationals against all but essential travel to egypt except for the red sea resort and the foreign office web site. he is right that these are deeply disturbing scenes, the level of violence is appalling. we should appeal to all sides to

stop the levels of violence and particularly the sexual assault. it is not for this country to support in a single group or party. what we should support his proper democratics will sources. >> mr. speaker i agree with the prime minister that all of us want to see a peaceful resolution to the present crisis therefore can the prime minister tell the house what work is being done even at this late stage by the u.k. and indeed the european union to encourage the egyptian government to secure a negotiated political solution to this crisis in advance of today's egyptian army deadline? >> what i can tell the right honorable gentleman is clear messages have been sent to president morsi included by president obama who spoke to him directly that we are communicating through our investors they guess he is a democratic mandate and we respect that. democracy also means ensuring that everyone has a voice and