there is a very real potential of domestic acts of terrorism. i just went to oklahoma oklahoma city in and the 20th anniversary of the bombing of air -- that in april. the program that counters domestic violent extremism is in my judgment a little more complicated. it's a threat to the homeland from overseas that i am concerned about is one that is making active efforts to recruit people in response to isis's recruitment efforts. ..

>> i would like to work with the department and i think it would be a vital and important step forward. so let me thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> those two documents will be made a part of the record. please go ahead mr. king. >> thank you, i appreciate this hearing and also your testimony here and listening to your testimony as well. listening about the i.c.e. containers and the because for a minute. can i have a clear time? okay. listening about it the i.c.e.

containers, that is how long have we been operating under the i.c.e. detainers. >> they go back a long way. when i was a federal prosecutor 25 years ago we had immigration dictators. >> they were mandatory for a long time. how long has this been a problem in your testimony? he said that in the last year 12,000 i.c.e. detainers were not responded to by local law enforcement, 12,000. is that indicative of a problem that we have had over a 20 year period of time for a short-term anomaly? >> i think that that number has been growing. >> would it be perhaps in sync with a 2012 aclu fact sheet that

was sent to local law enforcement nationwide that says that i.c.e. detainers are not mandatory because no penalty existed and they have this rationale reach that there is no lock law to be enforced. are you familiar with that two. >> i am not familiar with that back she. >> i would make sure that you have a fact sheet. can you tell me if that is about the date that the number of local jurisdictions are ignoring this and they began to accelerate two. >> i do not know the answer to the question. >> but we know that the department has cooperated to some degree with i.c.e. and with the aclu. i am looking at the letter that was sent to a congress member of this committee dated february february 25, 2014 from the u.s. immigration from i.c.e. part of

this in federal and state and local custody, they are not mandatory as a matter of law congress was informed very 25th that i.c.e. and your department was going to back away from the dictators and i was listening to a spokesman trying to say that it is all their policy not a policy that has to do with this decision. and so i would raise this as a point that there are a couple of jurisdictions here. so you have people in this department that have calculated the resources necessary to enforce all of the law and i would put them in sync with the former policy in new york, both the winners policy, and there is an expectation that is a deterrent to get to that point interest nor the respect for

immigration law which has been damaged and i still believe that we can repair it. what with but with the calculation be for the resources necessary to accomplish such a thing? >> congressman you referred to this with immigration laws. >> that is what i am trying to do. >> what resources do you need in order to do that? and you have more bids than you are using, we have a significantly fewer number of arrests taking place and that doesn't convince me that if there are fewer border crossings, that that would be all it would be to see the numbers going down. >> had you asked that question with what resources we had needed, i would like to see the immigration enforcement put on a pay scale with other law enforcement personnel. as you probably know a lot of them are topped out and one of

the executive actions was to have tea reform for immigration enforcement. >> i am happy to take that conversation up, as i believe that we ought to be as supportive as we can and especially to people that put their lives on the line. i want to make sure that we have the foundation to get that done. >> how long is the border? >> yes. >> i believe it's 2700 miles. >> okay, i want to give you an opportunity for this. it's actually very close. the estimates are under that. i think it's important for this committee as well as for you and the public to consider what we are doing. we are spending $13 billion on the southern border. that is the 50-mile line when you add everything up. that comes out to be a little bit less than $6.6 million per mile and that might not be astonishing like to think that

about 25% of those attempting to attending across the border are interconnected and many of them are released they be for five times from actually 27 times as the highest number that i have seen rebuilding interstate highways across expensive iowa cornfields for $4 million per mile. that is grading paving shouldering, all the things necessary. if we can build that for $4 million we can take that in a matter of two years. we have that whole thing, all while an offense, we would have two modes in between and if we do it they do not have the prosecutorial discretion. the israelis are 99% effective $1.8 million per mile. they have 14000 illegal crossings in one section they cut it to 40. and i think that there is an

economic vision to your department could bring forward and i would be very happy to sit down and go through the numbers and i spent my life in a contracting business and i think that we could put better application to these resources are being used today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chair. first, i would like to recognize and say hello to mr. johnson. he is from the other great city and tennessee. the second-best barbecue but the greatest in the country. the follow-up on these questions we need to be concerned about threats from afar and recruitment of our people from afar as well as isis. but the fact is that we have more of a threat domestically to

our lives than we do internationally and an article in "the new york times" does this past year, just this past month, cites the fact that since 9/11, an average of nine american muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism plot against targets in the united states. but years. in contrast, extremists have averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing 254 fatalities, over five times as many as muslims caused fatality this was part of the terrorism center, and this has increased the study was that was released in 2012 and i ask you about the efforts to curtail

domestic right-wing extremists. and i believe that 2011 may have been a department that funding was cut or even abolished and is there any consideration that you have given to increasing the funding and/or renewing that department? i think that the department of homeland security in 2009 they disbanded the radicalization branch. do you think that it would be important to have that division re-created were reinstated a map sumac let me answer it this way. we found over $2 billion per year in grants to the state and local law enforcement and homeland security and public safety purposes of a lot of different kinds.

the first responder equipment that we have talked about is valuable whether it's a terrorist attack, a mass shooting, motivated by whatever purpose. and so for example the boston marathon attack which is very definitely an act of terrorism the first responders there were funded to a large measure by the department although they were local. so the grant money goes to a lot of valuable things in order to promote public safety and we have active shooter training as an example. >> i appreciate that. i'm asking about the radicalization branch and apparently that division was not reinstated. that's different than this

seeing if they can't ferret out some of these folks before they get the weapon and commit a mass atrocity. have you considered reinstating a division in light of the fact that these statistics are alarming to threaten the people? >> i agree when it comes to the statistics. >> i appreciate it if you'd look into that. after telstra, the union of orthodox jewish congregations of america noted that freedom of worship, we need freedom from fear. the houses of worship need to be safe. this provides grants to individuals much of this has been going and i'm pleased that it has been to do what organizations have done. but now that we have seen this

in the south in particular and over the years, there is an attack on african-american churches. can your department look in to an increase in funding so we can cover those that are also threatened in this day and time? >> yes we can, sir. we'd went to meet with officials of the church last week or complement three of the relationship we had with the jewish community in this regard. and i think as i mentioned to you that my great-grandfather was a baptist preacher in southwest virginia near roanoke. a little bit of a town on the virginia and tennessee line called bristol. and back at the turn-of-the-century 115 years

ago, a lot of that being a baptist preacher in that part of the world meant breaking up the occasional lynching at times. so i appreciate the importance of your questions. >> i appreciate your service. i thank you. i yield back. >> the correct price is the gentleman from arizona mr. king, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary johnson a report from the national academy of sciences $2 trillion during the first year alone for the societal and economic costs of a severe geomagnetic storm scenario with recovery times of four to 10 years. and another report stated that between 20 and 40 million people in america are at risk of

extending outages for up to one to two years in duration. and i can read the excerpts of 11 major government reports that share similar findings as you now. and yet the federal government has done next to nothing to help to protect the electric red. this would remind you that lester you testified that it was the main responsibility of the national programs and protections directors for the mppd along with other course relevant agencies to protect this great. as i'd like to ask you what is being done today at dhs to protect the spread from geomagnetic disturbance or from recognize electromagnetic pulse. and do you support legislative efforts like critical infrastructure that has come out of the homeland security committee to focus on this threat or act upon it. >> in general, i'm supportive of

the efforts being made. i know that the threat that you mentioned is one that we have a need and evaluated. and i'm happy to get back to you more specific worry for the record with an answer as to what detailed steps we are taking and how we regard this particular situation. >> i appreciate that. i hope he would they would take a special look at the critical infrastructure protection act because it's going to be entirely within your purview to respond to it and i think that it's something that you would probably support. and i have to get back to the subject here of sharing the constitutional subcommittee and that is part of the predicate and article number one, section eight, it calls for the constitution that provides congress to a be able to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and grants congress the power over immigration policies and it's

very clear and arguer administrative actions to exempt millions of unlawful and criminal aliens from any threat of enforcement from immigration laws with the congregational roll. >> this includes the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and that is what we do. that is what the department of justice does and that is what multiple agencies do. >> discretion is one thing, and i will probably leave it right there. >> we recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> this is a hearing where republicans are arguing that the administration is not enforcing the immigration laws and that

this is leading to increased -- the murder, i mean of an individual in san francisco. that happened within the last two weeks. i am really impressed with the speed by which this committee has thrown us into action to bring this issue before hearing. and then going to take advantage of it. something like the flying of the confederate battle flags and national park spaces, you know it's something that is salient

and jermaine and current. and you want to commit to a study in a hearing that will never beheld. it's politics up here and i appreciate your service, by the way. what we have is a situation where the woman was allegedly murdered by mr. francisco lópez sánchez who had been in federal crust to be on illegal felony entry into the u.s. so he would go into i.c.e. custody for deportation again but i.c.e. has a policy that when a local jurisdiction has an

active warrant against an individual, then i.c.e. yields to that local authority, holding that wanted. the local authority of san francisco county in that case decided to pursue the warrant and so it took custody and after they did so taking custody of him, they had so that when san francisco finished its prosecution, that it would turn him back to i.c.e. for deportation until after he was in the custody of san francisco

county, the authorities decided not to prosecute him which meant that he was eligible for relief and ideally it would've been to i.c.e. which had the detainer in place. however due to the local politics of san francisco county, they had a situation that i go through that to say that it was not the fault of i.c.e. or a breakdown in federal immigration enforcement that resulted in the murder of a gentle woman by mr. lópez sánchez. it was not all of your department although they are trying to make it appear to be that way.

and in fact under this president there has been -- this president is known as the reporter in chief. why is that a map and is it because over 2 million people have been deported under his presidency, which is more than what was deported under the previous administration with 17 months left on this term. is that the reason why it is known as this? >> let me answer your question and then let me say two things. first, as i have mentioned i believe that it is important that we focus the deportation resources on threats to public

safety and with the new policy i believe that we are doing that increasingly so. so a higher percentage of those venues to be the case are those that are in my top two priorities for removal. 76% of those today are in my top priority and i think that what we need to do is evaluate carefully whether it is appropriate in every case or a criminal warrant to be a priority over and immigration detainer. and it may need to be that we have additional discretion built

into that until i want to evaluate any such policies. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> we recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, on november 20 2014 the president issued his now famous executive order. doing a memo regarding the deferred action. >> yes sir. >> every 16th of this year, the judge had a ruling blocking the action of the president and the action outlined in her memo. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> end january 15, your account says that no applications would be accepted until the 18th february of 2016. >> i don't know exactly what that colloquy was. >> this is from your account.

regardless of what it was, the representation that no applications will be accepted that turned out to be wrong. is that accurate? >> that representation is not accurate. >> i don't know the exact policy. but i do know that we began to issue these on the face of the policy. and this actually filed an advisory of the court and here is what the advisory advise the court and here is what the court said. they expect all parties including the government of the

united states to act in a forthright manner broad and this includes that no action would be taken pursuant to the va directive until february 18, 2015. so i want to understand, you said that you were not going to issue it, but you already have told the court, what we told you was in fact true. when did you know is the head of this agency and department at the representation made to the court was in fact not accurate. >> i definitely know that this is an issue for the judge, that he is very troubled. >> when did you know -- when did you personally know as the head of the agency that it was not

accurate. >> when did you learn it? >> sometime in early march i became aware that this was an issue. >> who told you that you might. >> i do not recall. and i wanted to be sure that we probably advise the court of this issue which we did. i will say also that the fact that we began issuing three-year renewals was on the face of the policy shift was in the records of the court. i know that this is an issue i know that the judge is troubled by it. >> he said that it was deceptive representation he is extremely troubled by it. that is his word and not mine. when the judge says that, you

falsely represent something in front of the court and you later learn that you do that according to what you just told me and then you said i want to know what you learned and how long did you learn it have you conveyed it to the court. >> it could've been two days, it could've been one day, i don't know. >> you know if they have been misrepresenting this? >> i do not know. >> march 3, 2015. >> but i know that it was in early march. >> you know what else happened? >> well, a lot of things. >> relative to your agency. do you know what happened that day? >> refresh my recollection. >> we are having this in funding. the same day that the funding bill passed is the same day you decided to tell the court that

we lied to you back when we didn't give you all the facts. don't you think that it would've been nice if the congress during that heated debate -- you are talking about if this bill doesn't get done. so it would have been nice if you would've told the congress and the american people, by the way, we misrepresented the facts to the court, dealing with this issue. but you send an advisory the same day. >> there are so many things wrong with that question, i do not have 30s of in seconds to answer it. >> march the third, you filed the advisory. and then the dhs still passes. those are two fax.

is that coincidence? >> the gentleman is out of time. please go ahead and answer the question. >> my recollection is that i was on the sunday shows earlier in the month of february, so that doesn't work. second -- >> i would like to know when you found out. >> i don't recall when exactly it is in the course of the day sir, the funding bill was passed. and i really don't think one has anything to do with the other. i knew the this was an issue, i found out about and i it and i wanted the court to be a part of it. >> it might have been important enough to let congress know in the heat of that debate when this is an essential issue of that debate that are council did not represent the facts of the court, that is an important element for them to know in the course of that fundamental debate. and you don't think it's important to know that? >> the gentleman is really out of time.

>> whether congress voted on march 3 or 4th, i think that i tend to think but i don't have the calendar in front of me that it is on march 4. >> the gentleman yields back. we now recognize the gentleman from california. >> secretary duncan come i was one of the congress members have visited the detention center.

>> you know, the families that i spoke with when i was there they were not criminals. they were victims escaping extreme violence. she and her daughter escaped but ended up in a detention facility for a month. and this made her desperate and it might as well have been a million dollars because it was unattainable. and then her daughter was going to be taken to the medical unit because she wanted to commit

suicide and so secretary johnson despite how the agency will implement this policy, how long do you expect the review to take? >> much of the reform that we have announced and that i directed are underway already in terms of this. and it has produced results. in terms of the new bond policy. i believe also that that policy has been implemented and is under way. the review that the director directed of the facilities themselves the advisory committee, i would have to get back to you in regards to that

but thank you all for visiting and for meeting with me after you did. >> thank you. and i want to get more clarity. we'll i.c.e. continue to use fonts for these families and how we work to ensure that these remain reasonable for them? >> i have directed that they be realistic and reasonable and that i receive regular reports on what the bomb levels are. and i know that i.c.e. is developing if they have not already developed, the criteria for setting bonds at a consistent and affordable rate. when i was at one of these facilities, i was struck by the number of people who were there who had a bond set but they were not able to produce for cash. and so this is one of the things i want to be sure that we set realistic way. >> i also want to ask about this detention center in california

and there have been numerous reports documenting care for the detainees. the facilities were not run by private companies and we know that some fail to provide adequate medical care resulting in the death of at least one detainee, mr. fernando dominguez who was detained for five years and died of intestinal cancer several days after he was rushed to the hospital with unusual bleeding. the facility has been expanded by 640 and it is of concern considering the history of medical neglect. so what is i.c.e. doing to ensure that private companies that they contract with provide adequate medical care and abide by the performance-based national detention standards? >> this is a priority of mine and i believe it is a priority and focus of the director. i have heard concerns raised

about private contractors running detention facility is and i want to be sure that we get this right with respect to the conditions and with respect to clarity about lines of authority and responsibility. so when you have a private contractor in the mix whose responsibility is it day-to-day to ensure that the conditions are of refinement and it's something that we are looking into and something that i'm interested in. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> thank you chairman. that afternoon. >> mr. secretary. the complications involved with dealing with all kinds of local law enforcement entities can be quite chaotic. but i am disappointed with the

administration in the way that it is not directly handling century cities. i think in this issue we have a much more direct impact by being aggressive as it has in other areas of forest sanctuary cities to be in contact and i have worked with them for a great deal of time and i think that there is some of the best agents that we have in the system and i agree with your position on this day. but i put most of the bank and trampling on century cities at this point but i put part of the blame on homeland because of the void between the detainer and container and the warrants and i know in some situations warrant may not be applicable. but give me some insight on how you have seen or what director

of you can give to century cities in particular of letting i.c.e. no and did you have anything in mind at this point. >> the most effective way to do this is to do a core operative constructive effort. >> i think that you have the authority.

>> i think that the administration is avoiding arrest in the way that it does. >> we did take the possession position that this was mandatory. >> i'm aware of that. >> and you know, last i heard they said they shall not cooperate with i.c.e. >> i think we are correcting that. >> if you think at any time that you may help with that direction, please contact us. it's happening across the u.s. last year the u.s. sentencing commission created this and

this was also made retroactive as a result and many offenders will be released on november than i have in front of me is this pertains to the middle district. sixty people released between november 1. and there will be more after 2016. as the state gets closer to the border, those numbers increase. because on that list for 60 people there are about 28% and 19 of them are from outside the country.

and we are talking about what has taken place a particularly over the last few weeks and my condolences go out to emily. >> please respond. >> yes, i am aware of the issue and the federal sentencing guidelines and i'm aware that a number of individuals will be released as a result and that a number of them will probably be undocumented to do the most in that regard. >> i appreciate that, and i yield back for one second of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, chairman. >> secretary johnson, welcome back. >> thank you. >> we spoke about drug-related

violence in puerto rico. the same subject with virtually every senior dhs and doj official that comes before this committee. >> there were 1136 homicides in puerto rico. [inaudible] that was nearly the same number of murders as were committed that year in texas. which has over 25 million residents compared to 3.5 million. [inaudible] since puerto rico is within the u.s. customs zone transporting narcotics from south america onward, we have the will

resources that we are dedicating to combat this. accordingly i did everything within my power to change that dynamic. starting in 2012 under the predecessor and the message began to sink in. dhs component agencies started to step up the game. the coast guard is increasing this. i.c.e. agents and they search their agents where they have arrested hundreds of violent criminals and sees the vast quantities of illegal drugs and ions. from the air force and the

action taken by dhs in conjunction with federal and local partners has made a major difference in a very short. lack of time. not a lot. >> this current trend will continue and there will be half as many murders this year as there were in 2011 and we sustain and strengthen that effort. it is still four times the national average.

and as you know that includes replacing the six older vessels with six modern vessels. and that includes appropriations from congress to support air and marine operations and i will assure you that puerto rico will continue to be a top priority for dhs to. >> the answer is yes. since we last met last year, we have created an operation of the

southern border campaign strategy bringing to bear all of the resources of the department in different regions in a coordinated fashion. and so we have a joint task force, for example, which is for the southeast part of the country and the maritime approaches where we have a combined and coordinated way all of the law-enforcement asset devoted towards the southeast. and i think that's a positive step, i think it will be a positive step for puerto rico as well. >> thank you so much. >> thank you mr. johnson. i would like to go to the 30000

convicted criminals that were released last year. there would have been over at 30,000 for the last several years. and that left 28000 that i don't believe needed to be released. in a partial breakdown of the 28,000 evicted individuals that were released did not have to include 5000 convicted -- 200 convicted of sexual assault, is see convicted of homicide over 300 cubic did of commercialized sexual offenses and over 100 convicted of kidnapping. why did the administration release them and is the administration going to continue to release these types of individuals? >> i would like to see that number greatly reduced to the

extent legally possible. the last year i.c.e. issued new policies tighten up -- and so we have a higher level of approval for doing so. we should not release people for lack of space or budgetary concerns. >> you expect this number to come down and the next year we might. >> i would like to see it come down. >> as you know many of them marking the convicted of additional crimes. >> i want to see that number come down dramatically. as you have pointed out there is the supreme court decision which constrains our discretions somewhat. >> that only applies to about

8%. >> as i have said there are a lot better up to the immigration judges, but i want to see this number come down. >> i hope you can succeed, that number has been over for the last several years and i haven't seen any improvement. in 1996 a bill that i haven't introduced became law. and a part of that law mandated that local officials cooperate with federal immigration officials. do you feel that san francisco and other cities are violating current federal law? >> i don't have the judgment with regard to that. >> you have no opinion as to whether or not you think that these are provided in current or federal law. >> i do not have a legal judgment on that question. >> i am appalled that you do

not. the number of sanctuary cities has been increasing dramatically has the administration on anything to discourage a city from becoming a sanctuary city. >> absolutely, every day. >> has the administration tried to talk about >> county supervisors, city council members with those individuals pursuant. >> i'm asking you if you discourage anyone from becoming a sanctuary city. >> i am encouraging people to cooperate. >> it says that you are encouraging operation and i'm asking you to try to become a sanctuary city. >> that is pretty critical if you're not doing anything for

encouraged them to do this. >> did you do anything to prevent any of these 300 cities? preventing any of those cities becoming a sanctuary city? >> a lot of jurisdictions regard themselves as centuries citizen i don't know. >> i think it's great you did not want to discourage any city from becoming a sanctuary. in regards to this surge, particularly those coming from central america that they are going to be sent home and it's roughly 92% then why hasn't this

promise to return his home? >> you're talking about children. >> not entirely. but regardless of value have how you have labeled them, they would say that they would be returned home. >> this becomes a time-consuming process. >> you agree with my statistic of 92% in the united states? >> i do know that an awful lot of them are still here. >> i think that it's 92% contrary to this. i yield back. >> gentleman from texas yields back. >> welcome. >> i'm happy to have you back before the committee. first of all i think that the gentleman just is misspeaking on

the issue of not all jurisdictions call themselves a sanctuary cities. some people procreate and others do not. but it is clear that a federal district court ruled that the county violated the fourth amendment right. >> and it's voluntary with all due respect. [inaudible] voluntary law enforcement has regard to that. and that is exactly what we are doing. so instead of having the secretary of homeland security asked him how many people have you tried to dissuade the

federal courts have said that the detainer a violation and are unenforceable. regardless of what we believe that they are. and they're just those individuals bringing them before them. what are you going to do a map lock them up as well? because they don't abide by the way do you look at the world. and how things should be enforced. these are local jurisdictions that have made a decision that as they carry out local police enforcement which is a local issue, this is the way they want to do it. and that they are not going to cooperate. instead of this hearing here which will lead to nothing this will lead to nothing. this will not lead to a solution. everyone will feel better and

they will say they will put in a days work. why we get to the business of making sure. mr. secretary, i would like to ask weston of the 11 million undocumented immigrants that all of them across the border are seeing. how does this work when max. >> a lot of the undocumented come here by crossing the southern border in a variety of different ways. >> did millions come here legally to the united states? overstaying those visas eventually we max. >> some of them have overstayed. >> so that if you shut down the border there would be millions of undocumented workers in the united states of america. >> well, is that we have done quite a bit for border security

and we could always do a lot more. but we have done a lot. but the reality is that there are millions of people undocumented. i'm struck by the fact that something like more than half have been here more than 10 years. they are not going away. we do not have the resources to court 11 million people. >> a lot of us want to see us address this population of people in a way that promotes law enforcement and it's simply the right thing to do. >> 11 million people, not one of them crossing the border ever again, there would still be hundreds of thousands with these millions of overstays because the only border is into the eyes of many. and the united states is not lax

or jfk and chicago o'hare. where people enter into this country legally everyday and they need to also do something as we looked at the broken immigration system and it doesn't give us the true nature of the problem. and i'd like to and because you asked earlier about this. when people apply for deferred action. members of congress actually filled out the form helped people fill out the form. and it's like if you've never filled out one of these forms you would not know. so i just wanted to make sure

that you gave the right answer. they asked them. and that is your answer. but it says have you ever been arrested and convicted of a crime in any country other than the united states. i'll only do you ask him about that here, but you asked them about the country of origin. [inaudible] >> it's usually our field, but maybe not in this. you have to tell everybody about everything. >> you must include a certified disposition, a sentencing record, unless prohibited under state law. i wanted to make sure that when people apply for deferred action, that they not only have to if they answer this all of

those documents, and that they do ask. and lastly, it has to be fingerprinted. >> to texas. >> you know, i believe it's an interagency process. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, gentlemen. i think that the broader point, asking about transcripts as opposed to record it is you can very well be a member of a gang and never be charged and prosecuted with that and i think that that was the rotter point. the going to the judge from texas. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you for being here. i was hearing my friend talk about this. ..

>> right. you are not in charge of tsa when you get through. >> i was not in charge of tsa. >> thank you.

fort hood to my no some of my colleagues prefer to call that workplace violence. but when someone is yelling indicating that he is doing it in the name of the law that does not seem to be exactly a right-wing radical evangelical christian. another has been discussion about francisco sanchez in san francisco. i no as a former judge in ongoing problem, one guy in particular he had nine dwis before he gets my belly court. if he's goingif he's going to be a threat i wasn't in the present. he was deported. he was deported five times.

have you analyzed each of those deportations? where it occurred? where sanchez may have reentered the country? >> i have looked at a very detailed timeline of each of the five removals. i don't sitting here recall exactly where he was removed from was station. and we don't no probably obvious reasons how and when he reentered the united states, or at least i don't know. maybe's. maybe he acknowledged our when columbus sitting here i do not no where he reentered >> that seems to be important to no where somebody reenters five times? >> absolutely. >> i encourage you, and i would like to find out somebody in your department

where those five reentry's worth. i mean,, where they all down in south texas? were they somewhere in the arizona area? california? it does not seem like we were ever get a grip on dealing with reentry's by three entries by people that come in illegally if we do not no where they are reentering. the fellow i mentioned that i had dealt with what he was back in my court i asked how he came back in and he said, wellsaid, well, they took them to the border and watched them walk across and then after the officials that took them to the border drove off he came back across and ended up back in our county. and so it just seems like that ought to be where the focus is. is they're any indication that if mr. sanchez have been given amnesty somewhere between the 1st and 5th

illegal entry that he would have shot catherine? is they're any indication amnesty would have prevented this? >> am not sure i understand your question. >> i think it's pretty basic the white house is saying that the fall for the shooting is because republicans are not pass comprehensive immigration reform. we pass laws appropriate money to build a fence to build a virtual fence things that have not been done. i am wondering if we can figure out what the white house is thinking because obviously amnesty was going to be part of aa

comprehensive immigration reform, and i am just wondering if we all of a sudden declared mr. sanchez as being legally here that would have kept it from polygon i can't find any correlation that. i can't see that it would have prevented her shooting. >> to be honest i don't know >> and i do prefer you be honest. thank you. >> diameter of -- interested for reasons of public safety so that we can more effectively get a people like this individual. so if they're were in amnesty i do not see how that particularly helps. you just declare everyone legal. i don't see that it makes a difference.

>> are you saying dhs is not than that? >> i do not no that is our policy as you stated. >> some people are able to make bond. some people are put on alternative's attention program. >> are you still sending people to different parts of the country? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i do not no logistically where we send people or how they are placed. i do no a large number of people are making bond and a large number of people are being placed alternatives to

attention program ways that we will be a yes. >> chairman thank you for being here today. ever since case families murder dhs in san francisco have importing rigors of blame. i heard several people say that it was not the fault of ice that lopez sanchez was released. we had a telephone conference last night and mice congressional staff that even if dob has released mr. sanchez ice his answers was likely would have released in the san francisco because of the outstanding criminal war despite san francisco being a known sanctuary city does

it make sense to release hardened criminal alien who is already the portable to a jurisdiction that we will never return him to you for the partition purposes? >> no. >> how often does ice released such criminal aliens to sanctuary cities? >> i don't know. but now to your 1st question. >> if it doesn't make sense wireless saying that they would have? >> i was not part of the conversation. >> you are standing by her answer, but that is not your policy. it is great to come here and give a good answer when the policy is to release these people to sanctuary cities. >> like i said, it does not make sense to release somebody. >> what are you going to do about it? >> as i said to my think that we need to evaluate

whether greater discretion needs to be built into a situation where they're is a choice were they're are -- a jurisdiction thata jurisdiction that once the individual on an arrest warrant and immigration detainer. they're should be some discretion built into what is the best course for purposes of public safety. >> but it took this young lady's death to actually get to that determination? in fact, you keep time he american people that they are safe, that we are stopping illegal aliens but the only reason we knew lopez sanchez was here was physical somebody. he has been detained five times. we keep getting them committing crimes. i don't no that we can say america'samerica is safe when people like this continue to come in the

united states i will yield the rest of my time to the chairman. >> i think the dillman from idaho. i am sure you can feel and understand the frustration. he comes back. he reoffend when he does come back. we put him in federal prison. we put them back in federal prison. he is released to a city where we knew ahead of time this was going to happen. it we will be one thing to release someone do a jurisdiction for murder charge, sexual assault serious, serious drug offense one thing to do that so that they can prosecute him and particularly if they're is a victim involve that is what you would want but this is an old drug case.

if they were going to dismiss it one a do it while he's in the bureau prison? why it did require his presence in san francisco to decide to dismiss the case? he was not going to be a witness anyway. you get the frustration. i think it has been directed to you because we perceive you are in a position to change that. i know you say cooperation you are trying to pursue cooperation. but. but i think maybe this week, last week when you are talking to some folks and judiciary they're are five municipalities that have flat out told you they are not going to cooperate. surely we must have something more thing going back and talking to them again. you work for the united states of america. how inhow in the hell can a city tell you no? >> first of all i intend to

re- attack on the five. that was prior to san francisco. i am not giving up. the old one majority have said yes. we we will continue to push. i agree totally with the spirit of your question command i want to evaluate whether some discretion can be built into the process so the one we are faced with the choice like that where able to make the best choice for reasons of public safety. i do not argue they're. >> and i'm not going to pick on somebody who used to be a prosecutor because i no you spend a lot of your career standing up for victims. but when i here the term sanctuary city, the only sanctuary is for law-abiding citizens.

>> i share the chairman frustration. at a certain time you say that they just don't want to cooperate. looking on your website. you have a vast array. i want to get ahead of the game. i am from a state legislature. they havethey have as you have used the term which i do not agree with this is simply a prosecutorial discretion issue. one of the things aa cyber security that you deal with. even for cyber security lost what is now they just do not have the resources and say

we're not going to enforce that not going to cooperate you. would you have an opinion? >> absolutely we would encourage them to do otherwise presumably. >> the interesting thing because you said earlier command they're are other things no opinion on sanctuary cities. but to the chairman just now you said you agree with the spirit of this question. >> yes. >> which is it? a? do you have an opinion, a sudden moving internally? >> let me make this clear. the most effective way is to work cooperatively with

state and local law enforcement. asenforcement. as a result -- >> stop right they're. the supremacy clause is optional. is this a permit because optional? >> that fish? i believe we were inhibited nonbelief to promote public safety. i do not believe federal legislation mandating the behavior of sheriffs and police chiefs is the way to go. it will lead to more litigation, controversy, and be counterproductive. >> one you don't believe that mandating what law enforcement in this country does because we're the only ones the congress does a long-running. >> i do not believe. >> they can pick and choose what they want to.

>> i do not believe that the federal government and the u.s. congress should mandate the behavior of state and local law enforcement's. >> civil rights are optional. >> the most effective way to do this is cooperatively with a knew program command i believe it will yield positive results. >> in the spirit -- civil rights are optional for state and locals to enforce? >> i do not think mandating an approach by this congress is the way to go. it we will be counterproductive. >> the civil rights act was counterproductive. >> i want to go back to what you are saying. the civil rights act was overreach and they should not be enforcing this? we are getting at the issue. issue. when does it become wholesale abandonment of prosecutorial discretion?

i agree with prosecutorial discretion. but you just take a whole class off the table. the best sentiment because it leads to other issues like the earned income tax credit. they're are decisions that you have that affect other issues and simply saying we will hold someone. we will address the earned income but it has more to do with what we pick and choose to enforce command i do not think -- i am not sure still what your opinion is because you have not answered it. before you come back next year what if some of these agencies decided they did not want to enforce something you thought they should. when should congress pass anything if they're is no

privacy clause, to protect civil rights, to protect other things. when disease department get to decide there not going to enforce federal jurisdiction of state and locality is simply say we're not going to do right now. >> my answer? >> asked a question. that is your response time. >> i have two seconds. >> the chairman will give you all the time. >> i want to enforce the law may i chairman? >> yes, you may. >> i want to maximize public safety and border security. going after the criminals. a big problem big problem is the number of jurisdictions. i don't know what level you want to put on them directed ordinances, laws, policies that inhibit cooperating with immigration enforcement. in my judgmentin my judgment and in the judgment of other border security immigration enforcement experts the way to most effectively work with these jurisdictions again is a cooperative one not hitting them over the

head with federal legislation that we will engender more litigation. i believe we are on the path to do that. >> i respecti respect that opinion. what you have opened up as a pandora's box because of other reasons. just because this is a political issue they will let that go. but you do open the pandora's box command that is not what the average american understands. i yield back. >> the dillman's time has expired. the chair would now recognize the german from texas. >> thank you, chairman mr. secretary. thank you for coming to houston. i appreciate your personal involvement. fema doing an excellent job during the floods of may come as i refer to. some questions about foreign fighters not only from the united states going to help isis but foreign fighters and other countries.

we no that isis uses social media twitter others to recruit, to raise money command to spread propaganda what is dhs doing to counteract that? >> a number of things. thank you for that question. first of all to deal with the foreign fighter issue one of the things we did last year was to add information. [inaudible] to the esta system, the electronic system for travel authorization so that we no more about people who want to travel to the united states from countries from which we do not require a visa. we have also developed in our developing an additional

set of security assurances that we can get from visa waiver countries because a large number of foreign fighters, as you know i'm sure you are coming from and returning to countries for which we do not require a visa. and so i want to see us enhance the security assurances we get from these countries with respect to people who travel from those countries to this country. additionally, on the international level we have done a lot. i sat in on and represent to the us in the un security council session in may honey issue of foreign fighters, and in terms of our efforts here at home for one of the things we're spending time on that i am spending time on our what we refer to as cde engagements' in communities like houston. i had a very good session on houston on the same visit with you and i were together at your middle school, and so in my view enhancing and refining

our cde efforts in this country which dhs participates in, with the fbi participates and command other law enforcement agencies along with state and local law enforcement is a priority. given how the global terrorist that is evolving. >> another thing i want to discuss with you is repatriation and what the law is currently and how it is being implemented, if it is. we have this problem. aa person comes to this country, commits a crime goes to federal prison. whilewhile in prison the system works and he is ordered deported. the country does not take them back. six months later he is released back across america what are we doing to those countries to encourage them, you take your convicted criminals back?

>> the state department and i have been in dialogue about this. and we have been dialogue in countries that are slow to repatriate.repatriate. i personally have this discussion with my chinese counterparts when i was envisioning in april. and. and i believe we made some progress there where they agreed to additional repatriation. china is one of the big ones. we made good progress. and i agree they're is more to do. >> i understand that china number one theone, the other top five for the amount, cuba, india, jamaica refused to take back there lawfully deported citizens. doesn't the law already

allow the state department under some circumstances similar to that scenario to revoke visas from that country? >> i believe that it does. >> do you encourage the state department to do that when appropriate? >> i would not at this time encourage that. no, sir. >> thank you and i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes my friend from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sec. johnson, thank you for being with us.us. i wish to applaud your recent system to change detention practices. that is because many of those awaiting their day in court our mothers with young children. why they fled they're home countries is no mystery. central america has been gripped by transnational gang violence. these are not violent

criminals, drug dealers, and rapists. these families are fleeing violent criminals, drug dealers, and rapists. many mothers have and rapists. many mothers have suffered sexual abuse, witnessed extreme violence and received death threats. how wehow we treat them colors the reputation of the united states and the international stage command our practice of welcoming these most vulnerable families was wrong and calls for change. after all the purpose of civil intention is to ensure individual show up with immigration court. these families have every reason to do so posing no flight risk and return home would mean risking death. likewise we have no national interest in subjecting children of any nationality to the detrimental psychological impact of attention which has been documented. your written testimony includes plans to rapidly increase the use of apd's alternative's attention and deserves are praise. a spending the use is the morally respectable and the fiscally responsible thing to do.

i am encouraged by this development and i want to encourage you to expand the use. our overreliance has disturbing applications. ice often agrees to contract with for profit attention corporations that include guaranteed minimum numbers of detainees for specific facilities each day. local lockup borders and detention contracts obligate eyes to pay for mental numbers of immigration detention beds and specific facilities referred to in contracts is guaranteed minimums. for the government to contractually guarantee specific detention center prepaid numbers of detainees

each day is a waste of taxpayer dollars, a violation of best practices of law enforcement and an affront to our basic concept of justice in america. the financial implications for taxpayers also raise in the november 2014 gal report command that is because such quotas often pad the prophets aa private prison companies at taxpayer expense even when slots go unfilled. certainly detention is invaluable to law enforcement. it is a valuable in dealing with immigrants who officers determine a flight risk or whose release could threaten public safety, but detention is intended to be one of many tools available to ensure individual show up. evidence may just be the latest symptom of a real disease far more expensive

save nearly $16 billion over the next decade for greater use of alternatives and attention. i am concerned the incorporation of local quotas in the contracts is further entrenching i would like to no if your aware containing lockup quotas. whether during contract negotiations private attention is insist i contracts for specific facilities contain these provisions. the gal report that address block of quotas was critical

and i wouldi would like to no whether dhs may policy changes in response. i hope you can respond to these questions. please. >> i would refer you to the directive that i issued on june 24 and the announcement concerning family detention which you alluded to in your statement, and i would like to take those questions for the record, sir. >> the chair recognizes the general information. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you for being here today.

i feel like i need to ask you it is not a member of congress, not a republican or democrat but an american. ..

sanctuary cities and how they have been applied and how we have discussed them in this context. how has discontinued how do we continue to accept the cities in the application of law? and i would say historically americans would view this enforcement of law as a sign of tyrannical government. it's inherently unjust. it's a blatant misuse and abuse of power to allow for such an environment to exist and i'm wondering how we expect americans to respect the rule of law if the administrations policy were to enforce them from

their rulers rather than the rule of law. to me as a person that represents a good 700000 people in one of the very issues i hear every day we lost the ability to enforce the law as they are written and that we do it in such a way that applies in such a way and another way to another group and when that happens when we lose the rule of law and folks simply do not want to comply with the law. >> if i could answer it this way, last year when i took a look at the number the growing number of jurisdictions for the state cities and counties that

were refusing to cooperate with my own department in the enforcement of our immigration laws i said this is something that we have to fix because the number is growing and it's affecting public safety in my judgment and so we took a hard look at the community program and we saw how it was becoming an item of litigation in court and the defendant was losing in court in these cases and we look at the political controversy that has been built up around the secure communities and i concluded that we needed to make a clean break with the past and develop a fresh program that i believe it's is going to fix the situation and promote public safety, said that's what we've been doing since the announcement of the program in november. unfortunately, there is no one size fits all answer to this because a lot of the

jurisdictions have different types of limitations on their ability to cooperate with us. hispanic we have to do this one by one. >> i know my question was a duplication of other questions and i apologize i'm asking a question that's already been answered, but the frustration is how is it possible that we live in a country of laws that allows the local jurisdictions to set up these little buffer areas where the law does not apply to them coming and i know we heard about the fourth amendment and concern and i respect the fourth amendment but we can't hide behind the fourth amendment when the rest of the constitution applies from applying the rule of law. why isn't the federal government insisting upon the units of government following the rule of law and not allowing this to

happen and not allowing the selective replication to happen. >> it is a best approach and it will lead to much better results it will lead to the level of cooperation cause we have not been in a good place when it comes to literature restrictions that are just very distrustful of the immigration enforcement efforts and i want to put us in a better place as long as we are secretary. >> the chair will recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary johnson, earlier today when you responded to the first question you said it is a fiction to say that we are not enforcing the law when it comes

to deporting criminal aliens. did i hear you correctly? >> yes sir. speaking to the department is supporting some folks that i would hope he would agree you would agree with me but is not a fiction is this administration has been attempting to change the law when it comes to deporting criminal aliens. >> in my judgment and the judgment of the department of justice, executive actions were within an hour within our legal authority. >> i'm talking about changing the law. >> if it is in the authority to act, you are not changing the law. spank you do agree that the order in n-november attempts november attempts to allow executive amnesty to fortify the

millions of illegal aliens, would you agree with that? >> one of the executive actions i designed was to create a program by which we can offer the preferred action on a case-by-case basis to those that come forward and meet certain criteria and in the judgment should be given the third action. >> which could result in amnesty hispanic that's not my definition of amnesty. >> you've gone the record regardless saying that the actions in that regard that he acted constitutionally. hispanic i'm not saying he has acted constitutionally and right now the federal judge and court of appeals and the fifth circuit has agreed with me that the presidents request to lift back and proceed those actions

shouldn't be allowed to but today you talk about the issue of the prosecutorial discretion and we are both prosecutors, so i would like to ask about something that you said previously. >> it is beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. it doesn't sound like something you said? and do you believe that? >> i still do. >> i know the answer to this question. they've already crossed that line by suspending the law for almost 5 million folks that are here illegally. >> i wouldn't characterize the executive actions outweigh and i would refer you to the opinion of the office of legal counsel

in november and where the line exists i thought it was a thoughtful discussion. >> but again wherever the line is you don't think that these crossed it at this point? >> knows her. >> that begs the question what would it take to cross that line backs because i think that there's every possibility that this president will attempt to move this line again and so if this president were to seek to grant the deterred actions to all 11 or 12 million i would like to hear you on the record whether that would cross this line. >> well again i am no longer practicing law. i am just a secretary so what you are asking for easy legal judgment and i agree the opinion

of the office of legal counsel has a pretty good discussion of this exact topic and i recall. >> would extend even or 12 million folks wax in what you have an opinion whether it should? >> it depends on the circumstances but i would say i doubt it. >> so do you doubt that amnesty should be granted to 11 or 12 million people. >> enough of those people a lot of those people are and should be priorities for removal. in my judgment, someone at the preordained for the removal shouldn't receive deferred action.

hispanic i see my time is expired. >> mr. secretary i. thought we've are getting towards the end of the two members. what you want or desire a short break or do you want to keep marching on? >> i'm happy to keep going for a while longer. >> the gentleman from new york my friend is recognized. >> thank you to my good friend i want to thank the secretary for your presence and patients as well as the tremendous job that i believe you've done. >> i want to begin by asking there are 11 million in this country approximately is that correct? >> that is an estimate from years ago 11.3.

>> have been forgiven the resources that would be required to support all the 11 million undocumented immigrants? is it reasonable to have a preordained policy that focuses on those undocumented immigrants who would potentially pose the most danger to the american citizens? is that what they've done? and in new york we have an innovation that has begun to develop in some significant ways for our city and state as has been the case across the nation and i've been very supportive of that many in the technology sector indicating there's approximately a 20% vacancy rate if not more of jobs that they cannot fill and that's been part

of the impetus for the increase. >> i was disturbed however by the revelations of what appears to have taken place at the disney company and i just want to ask a few questions about that and before i did i just ask unanimous consent an article from "the new york times" dated june 3, 2015 titled pink slips first training the foreign replacements to be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> as i understand approximately 250 disney workers were laid off at some point and in 2014 many were placed by immigrants in the outsourcing company based in india. >> that's basically my understanding yes.

to train individuals connected to this company to replace them that were given h1b visas is that the koran allegation as you understand it? >> it is under investigation. >> i understand what the law is in this area. >> it provides a temporary member in the neighborhood of 85,000 a year with computer science engineering or other advanced skills when american workers are not otherwise available is that a correct description? >> that sounds correct to me. in the actual law related to the

issuance of h1b fees visa what is related to the violation of the policy? >> that is something where the congress may be of help us and it's my understanding that we don't have enough tools legally to deal with that kind of situation assuming that it occurs. we could have some help from congress to bolster our enforcement capabilities in a situation such as that one and i can get you a more informed opinion on that but that's what i'm advised of. >> i would be interested in further thoughts in that area and yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you mr. chairman.

we appreciate your service to the country. in the percentage how secure do you think the southern border is? what percentage? stomach it's tough to quantify by percentage as i mentioned earlier i think that over the last 15 years we've come a long way. >> how secure, what percentage of folks are getting away? do you have any idea? been apprehensions across the border illegally has gone down considerably. >> so you can't give me a number. that's fine. i spent some time talking to the men and women in the field into the present south texas to

represent the border backgrounds will and that's right in the backyard of the district and i have to tell you i'm hearing about his frustration from the rank-and-file of the border patrol for the border patrol agents to become the prosecutorial discretion means that aliens and drugs smugglers are just getting released and i've also heard the administration is planning to cut the proposed purchases to replace the vehicles but the border patrol agents desperately needed to secure the borders. >> these men and women are in a very rough environment. i did a rival on that and i understand it's tough to protect the country especially in some of the terrain but as the administration's policy seemed to completely ignore the fact that the easy equipment and manpower to do but that they need to do and it seemed like

almost intentionally reducing the ma -- row you know that to catch the drugs with others the most likely end up getting released from custody and walking away in the end. >> those new apprehended at the border and of those that arrived in the country after january 1 2014 are priorities for the removal. >> they are catching the same person again so you deport and they are taking basically back across the bridge.

>> that should be and i believe that in the current budget request to congress he asked for ps for more surveillance technology, more border security to do a better job. we've come a long way the last 15 years and we are very pleased about that. and i know that there's a lot more to do. >> and i know that bill helps with some of that and soft patch and we look forward to getting that through congress. >> if you are an alien or drug smuggler with the knowledge that as long as you don't bring more than a handful of people across all certain amount of drugs under the prosecutorial discretion to limit everybody knows you get away scot free. wouldn't that -- wouldn't that be an incentive to keep going? it doesn't seem like that would be a deterrent. >> irrespective of whether they have narcotics with them and whether they are smuggling of the priorities are removed.

>> what about those with small amounts of drugs that are only bringing over three folks ask >> my understanding from the border patrol agents is if you have less than four u. basically walk. >> we began last year the to crack down on the smuggling organizations that something the department of justice instituted last summer. >> you are certainly not going to face any jail time at worst are going to be taken back across the border. >> that is a matter of law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion by the department of justice. i do know that since last year since about a year ago we have prayer ties going after the organizations. >> i've only got five seconds left.

>> i know you have other commitments. i wanted to recognize any closing reactions and benefit sharing its request to mention a couple of matters and we will have you out of here. >> first thank you for your excellent presiding over the hearing. one of the reasons all of us stays behind the product minority i was unnecessary as the chairman was very well balanced and even ended and everything. for the record because it is important i want to say to you i share with you the same english and pain as i know the secretary does in every american and that nobody has come here to look for excuses or anything else.

that woman should be alive and enjoying life in the united states of america. he should never be allowed on the streets of the nation again but it's an organ that we have the facts straight that our system does work. 51 months, 21 months. it's over ten years in jail because he illegally entered the united states of america time and time again. i think we should try to figure out a way i believe if you and i had the secretary and men and women who want to solve the problem we could solve this problem and save people from

harm. this man is not an immigrant. immigrants come here to work. we should be. thank you so much mr. secretary for a long day here with us. >> the gentleman from illinois for being always very consistent you have zero tolerance for those that come here to do harm to anyone and that has been your position as long as i've known you. mr. secretary veteran and wanted me to mention quickly to you that he had written in march about a legit fraud. he pledged his willingness to work with you to cooperate and identify the sources of fraud so

that it could be a laminated. i can tell by the look on your face you get a lot of letters you may not specifically recall that one but i know a lot of the folks well. it sounds like you are aware of the commission and even the department of justice working on that. i'm not going to ask about the fifth circuit you couldn't comment on it i could ask about it anyway but the only thing i will add with what my friend from illinois said there was an immigration that you and i probably are not ever going to agree on and that's good. that's fine that's the beauty of democracy. i think what we can all agree on is to return someone with this criminal history to a jurisdiction that had no intention whatsoever of any prosecution and in the process he is released and should be an affront to everyone.

san francisco had no intention. they dismissed the case. you can dismiss it when he's halfway through the federal prison sentence just as easily as when he's in your custody. so i would tell you i'm happy to work with it and i get a commandeering clause. you've got court cases. if there is a way to get around that what but i find instructive i don't doubt your power of persuasion and i know you are going to go back and talk to the municipalities that you know. but even after this young woman was murdered, san francisco was already on the record saying they are not going to change their policy. so when you have a city like that, i don't know the co-optation of persuasion is going to work during it so we may need to consider something else. when i look at uic that

secretary the secretary of homeland security for the united states of america. you shouldn't have to get their cooperation. ul frank city supervisors in san francisco so with that, thank you for your patience, you have a really hard job and we appreciate your current service with previous service. with that, we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

in the mid-1940s, if you had asked who is a shining star in american politics, on a national scale someone who was going to be governor, a lot of people captain brown, arthur schlessinger he was one of those people that worked in the

white house when he was in his early 20s he seemed destined for great things and came back to kentucky in the mid-1940s was indicted for stuffing a ballot box and went to prison and so that incredible promise flamed out. >> we also visited the home of the speaker of the house senator and secretary of state henry clay. >> it is a unique situation. the original home had to be torn down and rebuilt. what we have is a home that is eventually a five-part federal style home as henry clay had with details of architectural elements etc., and an avid player of aesthetic details added by the granddaughter and great-granddaughter and so on

special presidential envoy dealing with a military mission against isis. he talked about the campaign at the center for american progress in washington, d.c.. following the remarks the national security analysts discussed the progress of the military mission. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> good morning ladies and gentlemen thank you and welcome to the center for american progress it's amazing to see so many wonderful friends here and to see the ambassador and several other distinguished members of the diplomatic corps and we are all here from the

perspective to launch this report from but from all of your perspectives to get an opportunity to hear directly from the general john allen the president's special envoy to the global coalition to counter isis. the general is one of the great patriots and public servants that we've had in this country and i had the privilege and i've known him for several years. he has been a man that would take on any difficult task for the united states and in he's been endlessly dedicated to the troops dedicated to the marines for dedicated to the civilians who worked in the most difficult places, and i'm honored that we have him here today.