happened. it's bringing the narrative back not whether or not satellite imagery was doctored or not but two bodies on the field are falling on people's roof to guidebooks and children's books luggage constantly bringing us back to the human cost but the fact is as he said in one of the reports in russian roulette this tragedy brought to the conflict with everybody was sleeping outside to the international community and the two realized they had to do something about this so they had to pay attention because it's in a very strange bizarre way a year ago affecting them as well so i want to introduce the award-winning documentary

journalist who spent the last year doing front-line reporting and incredible indispensable work. those that made it possible for us to understand what happened because initially we came out there and we were just reporting what we were seeing on the ground and it's her thick that but it took the investigation and corrective and all the other newspapers that put in a lot of work piecing it together for us

to have an understanding and now i think we do have an understanding and i haven't done an investigation myself that i ruined the moment it became clear to everybody that a plane had come down in eastern ukraine and very shocking moments that was. you are just sitting there do have internet and you are reading your twitter feed. somebody said it was a malaysian plane and was like one of those september 11 moments for me because at first it seems so outrageous and ridiculous i thought somebody was making a joke about the previous malaysian airline or that disappeared because earlier that morning the rebels announced

they found the ukrainian transport plane and i thought somebody was making a joke. but we quickly realized that this was a real incident and we channeled all of our resources to get it there as quickly as possible. the only little piece that we have been able to add to the general understanding is we've been able to confirm one of the recordings in the people's republic. he was a leader recorded by the

security services and it's hard to know whether you can trust some of the stuff being put out by the security services or anybody else. but i felt it was an accomplishment to get in front of him and have him admit that he was the person that made that phone call and i think we can play it from one of the reports we did about ma-17. >> [inaudible]

[speaking in native tongue] i want you to know when i was doing that interview i was terrified because we come in there with a russian reporter who's a great photographer and he introduced himself as being from the russian publication that you sometimes work for and we were having a pretty innocent conversation up until that moment and it was something he

really didn't want to talk about. there is a bit of a story how we ended up there. i wasn't planning to see him at all. we were on our way to see another field commander who have recently started getting these getting the people to vote on whether they should be guilty and executed and then putting those videos out on the internet he was on the neighboring town and they had a sort of rivalry going on and we were driving through when we were stopped at one of the checkpoints and they asked us where we were going and where we were headed and we said we had an invitation and they said no our commander is the stronger commander of the two.

he sits there and puts videos on the internet. we can come back and see your leader after words. so literally we were basically escorted with a van in front and car in back to an interview with this guy we hadn't planned on doing and to be honest i haven't heard of any sort of sunk in half way into the interview that this was the guy that they had recorded so that's the story and the reason i'm telling you this because this is one fragment that gives us the overall picture and what everybody else stayed on the ground and verify the entire story in all of the places they visited and all the people that visited all of the

angry townspeople who probably didn't want to see what they had seen. i think that we over them a big thanks. that's what i want to tell you today how difficult it is to work outside of eastern ukraine and to thank all of the people that have been involved in this investigation. [applause] >> next a dutch public television program from eastern

ukraine and on the crash of the malaysian flight 17. he's also reported from afghanistan and interviewed people like desmond tutu. stimac reporting on the annexation of crimea and the separatist. in february there were reports about these agreements and then of course a year ago we also rushed through the crash site after it was down. we can play the video. >> when i arrived there i was struck about - when i arrived i

was struck by the stories of the villagers living around and i often saw bodies falling on the roofs or the gardens. >> i recently visited marina and she was so traumatized she had to take tranquilizers to be able to sleep. when the shelling had her come later she went elsewhere.

also about 20 orphans playing soccer was with master them falling on the playfield. they didn't go to recover but by then temperatures over 90 degrees were getting in there - unbearable. >> [speaking in native tongue] 's been making motions >> emotions while reporting never came so close as this time.

almost 200 aboard. many of them coming from the town that works like mine and in the country like the netherlands it seemed like everyone knew someone on the flight. some friends of mine had been on board. one of my acquaintances at the time was texting me to get updates on the site. also my cameraman had a friend on board. these are all the pictures. they wouldn't be able to visit the area. they took some flowers from the

field. the floral artist made a work from the bouquet. we donated it to almost 250 other across the world. this is in australia. the exhibition on the process started yesterday in a museum near amsterdam. they tried to bring the fields of east ukraine to the netherlands since they still cannot go to the war-torn ukraine. only a few body parts were recovered and flown back to the netherlands on one of the

impressive repatriation flights. but they have nothing. they made this picture boarding the ma-17. his father and stepmother waited until the end of the identification process the first of july almost two weeks ago and last week they buried him empty coffin. his father told me that he is jealous of those that do have some small parts. we returned to the site many times over the last year. reporting hasn't been easy.

[inaudible] we know that the separatists started or put forward with concrete proof one of the reports tell a story about the russian soldier and tracked them down to russia and east of ukraine.

[inaudible] for the first time these guys they were pretty frankly actually but a few others just before this picture they forced us to believe for the job otherwise they would come and i quote, shoot our heads off. recently i stated the night in a bomb shelter on the ukrainian side of the old wine only about 5 miles from the air force and "the new york times" did a story on it. despite they keep reducing many of them live on the territory because it's safer than in the surrounding villages.

the staff and the local authorities to complain that the ukrainian army is hiding its artillery making workers and civilians the target for the rebels. they say that they are ignoring the request. i've experienced other tragic results of the army striking back at the territory in the bus station being hit people living in bomb shelters, lots of kids, too like you will see here in hospitals and markets and villages be entirely destroyed in the crossfire. it's a human catastrophe on both sides. apart from the weapons of five they are still fighting the separatists.

i believe the downing of ma-17 has had a limited effect on the development of the war in eastern ukraine. it did reshuffle the international politics creating the new cold war but besides the social administration it seemed to think that our country just has to fight the water in this and other powers only exist abroad but the countries became a part of the geopolitical. ma-17 could be for the netherlands and europe with 9/11 was for the u.s.. the defense policy seems to be shifting the government towards the budget in the numerous cuts and no european countries seem to realize we have to upgrade intelligence and to cooperate on the policy that they are cautious not to blame the

suspects in this moment that the minister is also pointing out. in the investigation report it would state that they took it out. i personally don't think that this report will stay there because the investigation team is investigating the cost and that they are trying to keep the investigators on the team pointing out the suspects is it possible for a prosecutor who runs its own investigation. as you probably know, our governments suggested to install the united nations tribunal and

many legal experts are also skeptical for various reasons. early june i returned. he met with a rescue worker. he laid down roses at the cross which cross which is supposed to keep evil out of the village. [speaking in native tongue]

spin at 822-year-old man lost his brother recently said to me that after one year it hasn't healed a bit. i would ask all of them to come up and have a discussion on the stage.

>> this is a question for all of you. it's exactly a year later and i think that unfortunately for most people outside of the room and outside of the netherlands and ukraine and russia it registers as to the world's consciousness why should the world keep paying attention. >> for the special monitoring mission is one of the things keeping ukraine in the headlines. very important that they continue to cover the conflict

in ukraine and there's a lot of competition with what else is going on in the world but the worst thing that could happen right now in terms of the disaster itself there is still quite a bit. part of the problem because we do help facilitate access and i have a privilege of working because of the restrictions on access it's becoming increasingly difficult for many we are doing whatever we can and did the presentation we are facing severe restrictions and they mentioned the uav and things like that so hopefully

this will left and the people will have more access. the other thing of course is when we do report on it is amazing to watch how things can be taken one way or another. i don't mean to sound like a pr guy and a part of the fact we only report what we see with our eyes and ears and try to stay away from speculation. >> i must say that because of this i have the opportunity to report. >> it would be much more.

>> writenow they are from both sides of the conflict's. it's probably seven or 8 miles to just cross the frontline so that's very difficult. one thing that has surprised me a mod i must say is that it didn't really affect the march. they've just kept denying any involvement and that's something

that people know much more about politics than i do. it's been disproportionately affected. as i told you a lot got frustrated that the government investigation committee are so silent they really want to hear some use and there's a lot of controversy about the fact that we are not hearing anything about that and they are cautious to point anybody out as a suspect. but just a few months now we

will probably hear more about that. it's something that they needed seems. a schematic you think that's because if they come out and start pointing the finger that puts them in the course of action? stomach it is a new political action if they do so if force is the small country in the netherlands and it is difficult to deal with the country like russia or europe it will cause a lot of problems to think about the sanctions. they are looking up to the problem but on the other hand it is also reasonable to have the investigation committee working peace. >> i think that you wanted to say something?

>> the question you asked was an extremely significant event and i think a majority of people now who it affects. i was in the netherlands at the time living there for about a year and even just being in the country we feel how tragic it was. and especially with the war that michael has mentioned the way that i see it they are denying those any kind of closure into so it remains important to try

to get the full answers about what happens we mention that it's important for europe or the netherlands. >> i don't think it's going anywhere. it's the calm before the storm because we are waiting for them to come out so once those things come out, then people are going to realize that it was the beginning of the isolation and the rest of the world because you can't isolate the entire countries as libya was isolated for so many years but the same emotion and desire to do so is

going to be there once the eyes are dotted and t.'s are crossed and all of the states have to tell the public that they believe that the russian military was behind this and right now we are talking about it because it is the anniversary that we are going to be talking a lot more down the line maybe even for decades to come. >> the proposal probably isn't going to go anywhere so let's say the report comes out then what happens? there is a potential for that to happen but even if it is that happen i think that they are

going to stand by the findings of the investigators. the tribunal is needed for the russian people to be honest because the trouble for them is that if there isn't a tribunal that they recognize that points to figure out some specific actors from the commander-in-chief to the people that push the button and that implicates the entire russian people so for them to be able to absolve themselves of this crime, they need a process which they can recognize as an object of process. i think it's important for russia primarily to have this tribunal. >> i want to wind it back a little bit to what actually happened that day david

mentioned the fact is that everybody agrees on and it is a book that seemed like from the very beginning they were doing their utmost to make sure they were constantly filling in information. all of you did investigative work on this. how do you grasp at these things when they are trying to make a trading disintegrate into their hands? >> it's hard to check things because especially in the netherlands it is hard to find people that are willing to talk on the record. for instance the famous 21st of july conference you've got the radar images saying that there is a jet fighter in the air at the time.

i tried to get a radar expert looking at the image and an italian guy seemed to be the top expert on the radar images and it appeared that it is actually falling debris is in everybody's not being silent economic but if the investigation is report comes out things like that will become much more clear. >> they want to push that back because no one wants to confront the fact that they have to somehow deal with russia and i else i kind of disagree with the

idea that it didn't change the course of the war. i think that it brought a lot more unity and definitely stayed their hands in terms of expanding the operations to other parts of ukraine. we never know that for sure but there is a return to threat of greater sanctions which was definitely be read by this tragedy. >> you talked about the increasing exploration and the culinary findings. they did an extensive report and said they showed images again of that infamous press conference of the defense ministry and the sad we tried out all this information.

we have the facts. they have no proof, no evidence, nothing. this gets back to my question how do you deal with the fact that you are dealing with something that is quintessential where you present evidence and they say i don't see any evidence. so in all of your roles held to you deal with that? like the kremlin apparatus. >> they are saying we presented it and you didn't. everybody is screaming where are the americans are the of the latest images. why don't we see them. also a lot of critics are screaming this. why don't you show the imaging

and even on tall now we don't know if the investigation committee actually has those images. >> so does the work of the different organizations. you people in the netherlands trust that? >> not everybody of course but it's been very important and they discovered there's a lot of people doing things we are probably not capable of and that's very impressive and very good that we can help each other out and then they go back to check those things.

>> [inaudible] basically we should photograph and this one was taken here and here. how did you do that? >> going back to how do we know what's true for us for example if we find an image look at the original source. we deal with things who had no idea it was instant graham profile you can checkout and you know this is true. and i think that for example they often fill out of line but

they've never really talked about this in the russian media. after my investigation came out i had written about half an hour of research and later that evening they were - basically they had it on the screen where you could see my name but who was this person even when my name was there. [inaudible] they confuse everyone and ignore everything else.

in the budget-cutting from the newsroom there's a lot of interest from a lot of the colleagues that we work with but as more and more move into the newsrooms in foreign reporting through difficult so i talked to colleagues of mine and i think there is an awareness now to help facilitate the work by making it easier for them - >> to let you know we will break away for that committed live coverage gavel to gavel coverage of the senate for a pro forma session. it will be brief but they will be back to the atlantic council when the senate is out momentarily. now to the senate floor on c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. under the previous order the senate stands adjourned until tuesday, july 21, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. the one year anniversary looking at the shooting down of airliner mh17.

>> proving that satellite images our photoshop. those corrections never run on national tv. so how do you deal with the fact that as far as the russian population goes the ukrainians shot it down with american help? they're trying to place the blame on russia. pretty much nothing, even oes -- humiliate russia. howhow to deal with that's because i think the people in russia will never want to understand or try to understand, and they've dug into the position and that's that. maybe i'm overestimating the power of united nations process of some kind but i think the united nations is something the russian government hearkens to all of the time. at least rhetorically and talks about how it's an important institution to them and to recognize it and want to be a part of it et cetera, et

cetera. i'm not saying suddenly everybody's eyes are going to open but lee's to be a segment of the population which is following things that are coming from outside of the russian media sphere that hopefully will get something out of it. i think to be important maybe to russian future generations as well, if not now. >> yesterday australian broadcaster aired a video made right after the crash from the rebels themselves look at the debris and commenting on that, and we had my network had like a voice analyst look at it and the video, this clip of that already aired by the bbc previously. if you compared the analysts

saying this voice is the new voice, sounds like is being dubbed -- [inaudible] so there's a discussion about the authenticity of. it's pretty unprecedented. these kinds of videos being manipulated in such a way, so that we don't really know yet. is pretty new. the public and the world -- spent take experts make things. did you want to add to that? >> well, i think i would say to that is it just reminds us as a unique organization -- by the way i should remind people that we are unique in the sense that 77% of participants this come u.s. canada, russia ukraine our mission was boring. the mandate was extended by

consensus. it is important to have these international bodies come international instruments. i'm often asked why, is minsk dead? is the cease-fire dead? my answer to that is that is so crucially important to have a roadmap in place and also have a forum for dialogue but the worst thing could happen is that there's no dialogue going on whatsoever, and if there's no roadmap in place. part of our role of course is to facilitate that dialogue can. things that are extremely fragile right now, a lot of trigger happiness, a lot of ammunition to the have the weaponry. things are extremely, extremely tense. so that is what it's important to have that dialogue. >> i have one more question for rudy and then we'll open it up to the audience. you alluded to this in your

presentation about political change is happening inside the netherlands as a result of the mh17 crash. the netherlands and russia used to have a very close relationship, especially the previous decade. what was that reevaluation like to that process of reevaluation like politically inside the netherlands? >> i don't think you can say yet. passionate in europe we depend a lot on russian gas as well as economically interconnections between europe and russia. we were pretty severe and our prime minister also of course -- after the first month nothing really happened. we have had our political interconnection with russia i think any pretty normal way. i don't think, referring to like

defense budget and stuff like that, that has to be getting more clear in september when we have our new government budget presented. i think it's too early to say. i think it's interesting to see that our government is like keeping their hands off anything spent what about man on the street how do they do the russians may be before the crash and after? >> it's, i don't know exactly the more interesting thing i find that there's also in holland a group of people, and it's hard as hell biggest group sort of like a libertarian right wing kind of group who are very much anti-european union. and for that they seem to be pro-putin.

so there's also within the netherlands despite the fact a lot of evidence now against russian separatists people criticizing after media and our government for being too anti-putin. >> we will open the floor up to some questions. let's make sure their questions, not statement. >> this is for michael. since you mentioned this a couple times it's kind of a minor point but you talk about the jamming of your drones. it's my understanding is there is a lot of jamming going on but it did mess up the targeting by the heavy artillery from the ukrainian side so that they can't hit the rebel targets accurately. so do you see this jamming as just directed at at you actually put some up with what you're doing or is it just something that is taking place because jim is going on two major people can't identify targets, that has

nothing to do with you directly? >> the jamming i can to has been going on for weeks if not months. wide swath of territory controlled. i believe it was the past week that one of our drones actually -- a jamming vehicle and in terms of media feed also infuses the gps system. it's not only that our drones have been targeted by jimmy. they have been targeted by light a fire. one of them is inoperable because of that. there is some anxiety if i can put it that way over these drones. i don't know if any of you remember but once the big numbers of australia and dutch experts came into the mh17 site the police actually brought a drone with them so they could have an aerial eye in the sky.

the rebels at the time to work in control of the crusher were so nervous about it they didn't allow into the sky. that they never flew. i was very unfortunate because it was thought at the time their drone could help spot human remains, personal belongings that sort of thing. >> during morecambe local memorial. i'm not sure which network was able to put them in the sky. it was allowed by the rebels for video drones. >> john mentioned -- in his those in -- opening remarks but that no one else has anything about them. did anyone say what has become of him? has anyone done any further investigation between him and various other people after the

incident? >> i mean come as far as i know i haven't met in person in moscow but because the very fundraisers. he very rarely gives interviews to big networks but he does give interviews to nationalist friendly sort of internet youtube channel type stations quite often. and i don't think he is any direct control over what's going on in eastern ukraine anymore at all. i think he has been banned by the kremlin from participating in our he sort of a firebrand loudmouth who likes to criticize the kremlin's policy for not extending or further into ukraine. >> the prime minister of the republic at the time we have an interview from a point within and he was her friend the and gave an interview but we showed up, my colleagues to showed up

twice at his office but he was not there. been a week later i saw a picture in the newspaper of a colleague of mine who is also a correspondent, and he bumped into his gut in a café when he was speeded where journalists hang out spent yesterday like working international journalists drinking beers totally bought into him and made a celtic of the group i think it was quite -- >> it was a miniscandal, to be honest. it didn't look very good. but in their defense they were all drunk. [laughter] >> i have a couple observations observations/suggestions question. in the investigation said than done but bellingcat, it does not look like that you've used the information that has been uncovered by russian and

ukrainian bloggers. at least i haven't seen any reference but this is enormous information has been some kind of found, even if it is forced debate after the tragedy. and i think for the overall picture, extremely useful to combine what you have done with what has been done by russians and ukrainian bloggers. and it gives me suggestion to you, when you are saying i think probably you had in mind -- kremlin. just not to confuse russians and kremlin, okay? that's a very important difference. not all russians, that's the point. another suggestion -- seems to me you said the conflict launched in april which suggest it would exclude crimea, occupation and annexation and

all this for what simon has reported extensively from crimea which is not essentially correct because war have been studied by, according to the russian mr. defense on -- look at the medal, for example of crimea. >> let's keep it to a question. >> the question, exactly what you have in the announcement part one who shot down mh17? we never -- we knew who pushed the button. >> so the question is who shot down -- >> no. let me formulated. we know who pushed the button. my question just to make it more accurate who gave the order to push the button? i would like to ask everybody. [laughter] i will give you the answer we will play for the investigators to come up with their conclusion

conclusion. >> i think there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the fact that this buk was provide by russia and a lot of circumstantial evidence that shows that you can't operate a boat and russia a lot of training -- >> current training. >> right. okay. and so i think we can say there's a lot of evidence pointing towards russia. but i think the question of who gave the order to i don't know if necessary to would have been in order. i me i wasn't in the buk. december looking at this little radar screen. is got like two seconds to make a decision and then he pushes the button. i suppose it's sort of a general orders, whoever pushed the button, but i don't think any specific order. then again i'm just pulling stuff out of the sky so who knows? >> yes, to follow up on that point, i thought david

crawford's description of what it takes to operate these come and give 40 seconds to make a decision. so my question is, and his comment as soon or later this kind of incident would have probably happened in fact that the equipment was there in the amount of time you have to make a decision -- >> according to an interview i saw on russian tv yesterday with a russian aviation expert and if you bring a buk like that in isolation without the other parts of the echelon which have the echelon which have radar so that you exactly which are looking at in the sky essentially you can know for sure which are shooting at and it was pretty much criminal just to bring it without the rest of the equipment on its own. they can fire on its own and hid things clearly but it's not as accurate. you don't see what's going on up in the sky as well without the other five or six or maybe seven pieces. >> that's what communications

are right now, that he was not a complete buk system with all the vehicles that were supposed to be there. >> so my question is, we are not looking to necessarily put malicious blame on someone because of all these circumstances but we are looking for who is responsible. and most importantly, it's just like you were in washington. whatever scandal that is it's the cover-up that becomes a bigger issue. so this incident took place, how they want to describe it, but the issue the bigger issues what happened subsequently in terms of access for the families and information and all of that. and is there a way to get the russians to understand that's the issue spend what you mean by for the families speak with the cover-up or ignored there was no access for recovery. in other words, holt investigation and the subsequent

dealing with the incident. >> i think the future rebel the a lot of times have been saying from the beginning on that it was open to anyone who wants to go there. even armed dutch forces like armed policemen. i'm not sure if they actually showed up they would have let them there. that's something they said for a long time. we had to like do the dirty work. in a way they are right in that because the dutch experts did not come directly after the crash because it was a war zone. maybe they were on the bit afraid what was going to happen. also they did not want to recognize the trend for people to public. it was all but signed agreement to hand over the bodies and stuff like that. -- donetsk. michael knows more about it they

are truthful in that or not but what i saw and what heard from them was that they always, welcome open released journalist journalist. >> initially there were difficulties as i pointed out in my presentation and then there was a period where things have to be paused and unfortunate that was when the large numbers of dutch and a straight expert were brought into donetsk. a cease-fire was agreed to. we got big numbers after the india today or two of work and then more showing up in nearby. we had to leave the we don't know who broke the cease-fire. they know who they are but i can tell you that there was a lot of concern for many weeks about shelling nearby. there was a lot of bravery demonstrated too by many of the experts. and i remember i wrote this in my cnn.com these come for first

day that a large number of dutch and australian experts came on the crime psycho i think with the australian commander who said trade advocate in the field as if it is your last one because the point there being we don't have much time will be available to collect human remains, personal belongings. it was a very difficult situation. >> one question is there trying to think through what the purpose of this misfire codepink is in use for a buk other than shooting at their conquest is a general artillery weapon? i'm surprised they didn't that mother russia would bring a buk into the theater of conflict if it's holding purpose as a weapon system is to take an aircraft speak with there was a lot of them in the effort to shut down a few points previously but like i think around that time in the

ukrainian air force, maybe even 14, i don't remember, have been shot down. they were bombing the area. it was like a very messy thing for the military to have such a weapon. [inaudible] >> yes, of course. batman bad -- that men had -- [inaudible] there were certain suspicions. [inaudible] i know even the kiev government knows now what caused the crash.

>> could you wait for a mic, please? >> i just want to point out going back to the original question that there was social media -- local groups in the area. people were suspecting there's going to be a plain incoming. there was chatter about people getting excited that there might be another ukrainian playing was more bombing. bellingcat export the outlook into the. there was a reason for separatists to transport the buk system in the area on that particular day. >> other questions? >> i'm from the hudson institute. if you allow me, i actually like to take a little step back from

the mh17 episode and nasty about, for those of you who still travel regularly, which make up the implementation of a cease-fire agreements? >> well, as you know there've been two rounds come in december and then in february. in february very clear roadmap was outlined for everyone to follow, most crucially of course was inking a cease-fire. also the removal of heavy weaponry. the cease-fire as indicated and as my colleagues frequently say, we recorded many, many violations almost everyday, pretty much every day. in terms of the removal of heavy weaponry what, there were three basic steps. one was to provide the osh on both sides can provide with an inventory of what they had and we can work off of.

second was to advise us of the routes that would be taken to remove the heavy weaponry and thirdly is identify where these weapons will be kept out of harm's way. the first point giving us in the torah, we never as far as i know right now receive full information from both sides and that made the removing of heavy weaponry for difficult or also we go visit a storage place on daily basis and often times the weapons have been moved and some of the excuses we get welcome to it being used in a parade or been used on training. so that part is a difficult. the other steps in minsk we haven't got that far yet. and the other worrisome thing, i said this in a few interviews we are beginning to see training or firing ranges pop up on the rebel side. they are also using weaponry to

that is prescribed by minsk. it's a very difficult situation right now and all the politics aside, again, we have to remind people that at the end of the day is civilians that are really something i'm mentioned the numbers before. i think a number i quoted was to .3 million. that number is going up quickly. i think in some way show 1000, 2003000 people leaving the conflict zone for safer ground in areas controlled by the ukrainian government. one last point is that after so many months of hosting these people as you can imagine the strain is put on hold communities on ngos that are looking after these folks come on the social fabric of the country. and it does create tension as well. for our part we've done two

things off the top of my head. we've done a report on the situation, the second thing we do, for example, west ukraine is what i told roundtables or dialogue with people to prevent tension from this new population. >> let me illustrate. michael is best on the numbers. the last trip i made was early june and then go every day we want to enter was the date they were fighting going on around donetsk and it appeared like becoming volatile of it. although ukraine checkpoints were close action that day and was able are able to enter at all. we were finding a little hole and we did enter it, but yeah that they there was fighting going on again. so it can shift very much day to

day. also in the factory i told you about we went up to the roof or the highest buildings over there in the night and could actually see his case the ukrainian shelling donetsk airport there from there. i'm not an expert on what kind of artillery but it was like huge fireworks. it was just your average day. [inaudible] >> i'm going to ask a follow-up question. it is all the cease-fire violations happening all day everyday connected back to mh17, we don't say it's a cease-fire violation. is there a political decision to not say that? >> that are important -- as i mentioned earlier. there's the minsk meetings

happening where we are involved in a security working group. process is slow but again talk to our continued. there's a meeting at a kinko's back to what we said earlier. it's important that the world not offered its case from this complex. i continued that often at the permanent council meetings of the always seek a ukraine is very, very much at the top of the agenda. and i can say to think in a very granule format with a lot of detail because we are there on the ground in such numbers the i like to add another quickly because we also have to look ahead. one of the things we have been reporting on which is very very worrisome is the unexplored -- unexploded ordnance. it can become a huge threat to civilians and aid workers. and also a massive massive

destruction of infrastructure bridges, roads, railway. i think the u.n. a few months ago, two or three months ago came up with a preliminary figure of the cost of reconstruction i believe 1 billion plus probably a lot more. but destruction of those bridges is also impeding the flow of civilians across the contact on line so they can go into ukraine proper and get their pensions, the medical aid, things like that. very very complex situation. [inaudible] wanted to follow up on michael bociurkiw's statement that there are 2.3 million people who have left speed at 1.3. >> you said 2.3. >> 2.3 uprooted is the way to you and put it spent but you also have 1.3 ukraine, then

people in russia. you have nobody to different -- happening, 1 million normally have 100,000 people going to other place of how many people have left now? what is your assessment of that? thank you. >> very difficult number to come up with but let me answer it this way. you've probably heard of the village of the east heavily heavily shelled over the past week. we've been trying as much as possible to not observe what's going on but also to arrange for the guns to go down for a cease-fire. so civilians at least return. in our most recent report that village is now empty. this could have been avoided your we were also at the village closest to donetsk airport a few weeks back. i was able available to it was

virtually empty. in a lot of the settlements in eastern ukraine in rebel held areas, you may villages that are almost deserted, and those that are left behind are unfortunately the most vulnerable, the elderly, those with physical disabilities and also you see some children there. at that point i worked a long time in unicef and have to also mention the toll it has taken on children, the number that have been killed, a number that of an injured, displaced and psychosocial distress as well as absolutely future and even before the conflict, i think it's fair to say that ukraine was a very well set up to deal with that. large numbers of distress, then people. this is something that the international community could possibly help in keeping with. what children really want are a sense of normality. they want to play go to school

have a roof over the their head and they don't like showing. i've worked a long time in gaza and the west bank and it seemed effect this can have over a prolonged period of time. huge concern. >> so looking forward, you mentioned the villages. looking forward what do you do with this region? it's been splintered off on ukraine. russia doesn't seem to be looking to absorb it. don't would have money anymore. a it's a question to all of the panelists. county see this unfolding going forward and what do you do? >> first to two oh state michael's numbers, also again in february i think diving in the snow -- [inaudible] i think it's a coach of thousands of applicants at that time there were only five families left and the rest of the village was totally

completely shot apart. the ukrainians have stayed on one side of the village for a few months and the rebels on the other side. and in the crossfire there was not just one house being unharmed. it's really, really terrible to see i think it's typical to build the villages like that in the near future. talk about children. i also made a report about donetsk opera house was actually still running operas for children all during the war which is like very strange to see of course playing cinderella when rockets are going over -- line of your city. but to answer your question about the future. so me people fled. the economy of the republic is not able to stand for a long time because there's no money flooding anymore from kiev, no

pensions the whole coal miner issued is at a standstill. i'm very curious how long to be able to like survive the independent and not seek anything from russia. >> i did a 23 minute long report specifically about russia's involvement in eastern ukraine so that i could say that russia is involved in eastern ukraine and not have to page down thinking. i know there were russian soldiers ordered to vincent asian ukraine but i think the answer for what happens lies with russia. there needs to be pressure on russia if this conflict is going to can and can't fix into the conflict is over. it is up to russia to end the war. i think all measures should be towards pushing russia towards ending the war because it has to come from them. >> we've spoken to many

internally displaced people, and onethe one thing they always repeat to us when you ask what, when are you going to go home or do you want to go home? they do not want to go to the shirt the shelling has stopped. the second thing as i mentioned earlier, huge effort to de- mine bridges, railroads. you need a lot of experts there on the ground. once again that would be a role the international community could fill in once access becomes available. >> do we have time for more questions? how are we doing on time? okay, we have five more minutes. go for it. >> i am formally with the radio liberty. my question is for rudy.

i'm still perplexed puzzled by the dutch government's reaction to the downing of mh17. is there not a realization in the dutch government that by being ambiguous they are complicit in russia's denial cover-up, lie of everything that that is happening? >> very difficult to answer because i can't look into this wholesome mind of our government. so yes, what is happening is they try to distance them from blaming russians at this point. why they're doing that -- [inaudible] spent as a journalist i don't like to speculate much to be honest but there's a lot of criticism at the dutch government. and there's been some surveys of

university judging how politics, if politicians are trusted over last year. just after mh17 there were good respectful repatriation mission this up like that there was increased a lot. after that when things like this started to happen, it went down again. during last winter that trust in our government went down again on this issue also. why they're doing this i can't tell you. >> quite difficult. if you want the government action, pick a side if we investigate is completed. that seems it doesn't seem productive for the government to basically claim one think the second of alone going

investigation. one thing to sit in my speech is thethere are russian investigators in the investigation committee. if our government would say why malcolm the russians are to blame, they will probably leave the investigation committee, directly making to speculate a little bit. let's say the relations already a lot harder and also making investigation itself more difficult. because what of all party support during the investigation to be able to access all the site you want to go into also yeah. you are very disappointed, i can see. >> thank you so much to all of our panel is the this is very interesting. thank you to the atlantic council for hosting this but i think -- no? of the going to do another question speak was i would like

to thank everyone for coming. there's one thing but to point out. there's going to be a memorial march for the victims of the shootdown today at 5:30 p.m. starting at lafayette square and going to the residents of the russian ambassador, just so everyone knows. thank you. >> thank you, everyone. [applause] [inaudible conversations] will

[inaudible conversations] and >> just a reminder if you missed any of this discussion at the event account of you will find shortly online at c-span.org. with more live programming coming your way today with a briefing on digital music streaming and the panelists will discuss this at music prices and whether congress has a role to play in the industry. the visor committee to the congressional internet caucus will host the event live here on c-span2 coming up in about four

minutes -- 40 minutes. it has been a big week for nasa, sending back pictures and data. will have today's update life that went in eastern on c-span.

>> coming up at noon eastern we will take you live to the discussion with the congressional internet caucus

and the event on digital music streaming. until then a look at the prison reform and president obama's comments on the issue from today's "washington journal." >> host: georgetown university law school, the president shows up at our you know correctional institution in oklahoma. here's the picture in "the wall street journal." how significant is this treachery this is epic, peter. the president went to federal prison on thursday. on tuesday he talked to the naacp and made the most passionate speech about justice from a president i think since jfk. and on monday he commuted 46 cents as a people who have been sentenced under these draconian drug laws that everybody agrees we need to get rid of the. a huge week for equal justice under the law.

the president i think is focusing on this issue because it's the right thing to do. everyone in america really does deserve a second chance concluding americans who made mistakes that are not in the criminal justice system. we don't have to treat them like they are coverage because they are fellow citizens. is not politically controversial. i'm sure we'll get into this but bipartisan support across the board for fixing our broken justice system. i think the president also understand this is going to save a lot of money. he kept talking about $80 billion. that's how much we spend locking up nonviolent offenders. what if, what if we ended the money on tenured investments like preschools for everyone or jobs train. it just makes sense for so many reasons but most presidents have talked about getting tough on crime and treating people who

were in prison even more harshly. it is a president who understands that for communities safety we really have to treat these people in ways that they get services so that when they come home, and a return to the committee they will be fallible members of that community. >> host: you mention the president's speech at the naacp in philadelphia. here's a little bit of the president. >> 1 million fathers are behind bars. and one in nine african-american kids have a parent in prison. what is that doing to our communities? what's that doing to those children? our nation is being robbed of men and women who could be workers and taxpayers. could be more actively involved in their children's lives, could be role models, could be

community leaders. [applause] and right now they're locked up for a nonviolent offense. so our criminal justice system isn't as smart as it should be. it's not keeping us as safe as it should be. it is not as fair as it should be. mass incarceration makes our country worse off and we need to do something about it. >> host: paul butler, how did we get here? i did make it is increased incarceration and some of the statistics that we will go through treachery teater, the next day at the naacp conference former president bill clinton admitted it was partly his fault, that based on some law that he signed in congress in the 1990s that dramatically increased sentencing for low-level drug

offenders. there had been a crack epidemic social of concern about violence that was associate with the market for the drug and that was the context in which he signed this bill that dramatically increased the number of people in prison. when we look at how the prison population has quadrupled since the 1970s, it's not that we americans have started committing all these crimes that we were not committing before. it's a result of admission. we are admitting a lot more people to prison for, again, low-level drug offenses. that's what has driven this massive prison population explosion and also sentencing. we are sentencing people wait longer than we used to. but to his credit bill clinton at the naacp, he said i did it come i partly responsible but it was a mistake and we need to reverse this.

he pointed to lots of mistakes because states have been leaders in this effort to reduce prison populations because it's just so expensive. texas, the reddest of the red states has been one of the leaders in letting people out of prison who when it's not serving any public safety function for them to be there, and reducing crime at the same time. 32 states. 32 states have both reduced the prison population and also lowered their crime rate. >> host: we have set aside our fourth line, first three phone numbers our usual democrats, democrat republican and independent. we set aside our fourth line this morning for the second for those of you who have had experience with the criminal justice system. that could be a law enforcement, somebody who has been incarcerated. we want to your experience and get paul butler to comment on

those experiences as well. 202-748-8003 is the number for you to call your professor butler there's a statistic put out by the sentencing project. we want to show you. this sissy or a lifetime likelihood of imprisonment for black men is one in three. is that accurate? >> guest: well one in three black men will certainly be arrested and have some kind of involvement with the criminal justice system. the numbers are much larger for white men. many fewer whites that of contact with the criminal justice system that african-americans. and begin lot of that we have to look at the war on drugs the failed war on drugs. peter i have taught at college campuses for the last 15 years,

and i know that african-americans don't use or sell drugs more than any other group. the national institute of health where you are in d.c. says blacks are about 30% of the people who use drugs. but if you go not far from worry our to the justice department, figure of justice statistics, they will tell you over half of the people who are locked up for drug crimes are african-americans. 13% of people who do the crime, 50% of people who do the time. that's about selective law enforcement. it's about police focusing like a laser on young black and latino men. so the president at the naacp said a lot of black men and latino men don't get a second chance. they don't get the benefit of the doubt that white men get. and, frankly, the people, the president's age and my age we got back in the day. there used to be if the cops

stopped you and found some weed in your car, you know maybe they would throw it away. maybe he would make you call your parents and admit what you did. now they lock you up if you're african-american. and so that's one reason why there's such vast race disparity. with violent crime is a lot different. there are some crimes that african-american men commit disproportionately. the president talked about that as well. that's all about community investment. it's about reducing some of these structural barriers that prevent young men and women of color are having the same opportunities that other americans have. >> host: in "usa today" this morning, steve cook has an op-ed or an opposing op-ed to the editorial. and he says that drug laws keep our nation safe. is president of the national

association of assistant u.s. attorneys. those promoting the weakening of federal sentencing describe drug traffickers as nonviolent drug offenders, simply stated, this is a false label. drug trafficking is necessarily violent from top to bottom. >> guest: yes. so that bipartisan legislation in congress the safe justice the targets i think the bad guys through the editorial is focused on the if we are looking at the big time drug traffickers, the people who are in series of drug like cocaine and heroin in the country, everybody agrees that criminal justice system has a place for them, that law enforcement officers ought to be interested in them for public safety reasons. that's not who is driving the exploding prison population.

..rcement now, again, it has been selected, focused on african-americans, and it really has zero in on the street-level dealers, low-level dealers. you make about as much money selling drugs on the corner as you do working at mcdonald's. it is desperate work for people that do not have other opportunities. i do not think any responsible person thinks the way to treat the problem is stick those men and women in a cage for 10 years and see what happens when they get out. 95% of people that are locked up, home. they get out. the issue is when they get out whatind of citens have we ar what kind of citizens have we prepared? again, if you don't get job training ged or high school

diploma, and even college, if you don't get medical services, appropriate mental health care, you will not be a contributing member of society. you will make your community worst, not better. we've got to be focused on 95% of folks who are getting ways to make them responsible members of society. >> host: paul butler served at the u.s. department of justice. he stares at the white-collar criminal defense attorney with williams and connolly and is a professor of law at georgetown university law center and david flemington, new jersey, you are first. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe 9/11 gave our country the worst of both worlds because i see all of these scandals with the tsa. i see servicemen being killed in chattanooga. i don't see a reduction in real

terror. i think people in corrections and law enforcement use 9/11 in terms of ordinary citizen to make them a license to be authoritarian to the max for simple things. >> host: paul butler, do you believe we are living in more of a police state than we used to? >> guest: you know, they're interesting concerns about civil liberties that have been highlighted since 9/11. i can say one thing that happened after 9/11 that was an encouraging development is the fbi gone out of the drug business and started focusing on terrorism. i think that 9/11 realigned our sense of what the real threats to our country are. we can have a long conversation about whether we ought to be more focused on foreign terrorism or domestic homegrown terrorism whether we should

think about what happened in charleston as a terrorist act which i certainly think we should. a lot of the surveillance concerns about several liberty people have after 9/11 guess where those came from. they came from the war on drugs. and how much power the police have that data surveillance that lots of folks are evolving to or devolving too. when we start this or conan policy is, when we treat everything like a crime nsr solution to every social locking people up i don't think that there is any way to keep that genie in a bottle. it is corrosive. i think it is important to be concerned about the folks in the

criminal justice system because they are fellow human beings. they are fellow citizens, but it's also important to be concerned because again if it is then today, it might be you tomorrow. >> host: 505,000 white people currently in jail 332000 hispanics and others 130000 makes up about 1.6 million in federal and state prisons today. alexander is in washington d.c. >> i can take a long time to get to the bottom of this problem. there is a serious problem going

on in the prison system. the only reason they will stop his help educate them bring them in a position that they can be able to defend for themselves. i am going to tell you, i was at the time of a crime that i didn't commit. today i came out. i have done everything i could possibly do. i'm still trying to help stop this this cycle of freedom to keep repeating itself. there is no room for mistakes. not everybody in this society in america has done something is desperately wrong to be going in the system like at the revolving door. if you want to be freer this is the one who's failing. there's a lot of people going to prison for these -- the price

for what they are committed. they go into the prison system and do it not this time is unfair. >> host: alexander, thank you. paul butler. >> guest: i hear that emotion in your voice and i understand not because prison is a violent, inhumane place. without president obama yesterday and not tying a jail cell with a commode that doesn't even have a seat. you know, for one person to be in here is kind of crazy. the first three people to live in this little cage which is how the system operated for a long time now.

they are down to two people. again, you would want that for your worst enemy if he knew again your worst enemy is going to get out of that cage at some point and return home. i understand the pain their because we knew again look at these young men who are the main people who are behind bars now again, lots of nonviolent drug offenders. when you stick them in that cage for three, five, 10 years, that is not finishing school for crime. if you are not getting the services they need to successfully reenter society when they come out, you are not going to be better people, better citizens. one of the things i am so excited about is we are hoping

it might come up next week to be considered by congress bipartisan support from republicans representatives sensenbrenner, representative bobby scott a progressive democrat, speaker boehner came on board yesterday. so this is going to make a big difference because it is going to reduce the number of people who were admitted to present by getting rid of some of these harsh mandatory minimum sentence is going to provide some services for people once they are lockstep some incentives to have them go to high school to high school or at least complete their ged and get the kinds of hope here that they need so that they will be returned as contributing members of society rather than as criminals.

now, look at what happens when folks get lots of timeout after being locked out. a lot of jurisdictions get proverbial subway tokens, pat on the back, good luck. guess what a year and a half later 60% are right back in prison. we have got to stop that vicious cycle. i am so happy that at last again republicans and democrats, this is an issue of all things bringing folks together. >> host: back to the sentencing project statistics from 1925 through 1972 the prison population was pretty started to rise and went up increasingly. 1984 on pretty steep climb up to right now about 1.5 million. william in all wine, iowa has had experience with the criminal justice is done. but aesthetics.

you have had? >> guest: i'm not going to expect everyone to understand the language of the judicial system. i was and am curious. one that looks at the core and an in between point where they are not on the course that, not on the defendants i. a look at how the system -- how that case needs to be reviewed and how the brief needs to be put together to give an opinion. as a friend of the court or friend of the person that they are there watching the system play out. i actually have seen judges break the law sticking up to the prosecutor and it was just

appalling because i witnessed it because i watched the defendant for the prosecutor didn't show up for court and won the prosecutor didn't show up for court, there was another hearing set up. he said there was a default judgment and i was properly done and denied. >> host: william, i apologize, but we've got to keep this moving. what is your bottom line you want to convey? >> caller: bottom line is there was evidence that one of the jailers came through and said we have video of the prosecutor that was here. we were ecstatic because he was thinking he was trying to protect the prosecutor and the judge. we wanted that evidence that they would let us have the video of the prosecutor be there because he was never there. >> host: let leave it there. any comments for that collar?

>> guest: you know when you talk about the role in the court system, there are now creative ways of having judges think about social problems and to resolve problems in way that do not involve locking everybody out. new drug courts are focused on rehabilitation. we also have to think about alternatives to arrest. so much focus on incarceration appropriately as it is so harsh and so counterproductive to public safety. now we are starting to understand that an arrest is the point at which a lot of people into the system and start having outcomes that are hard to reverse. once you get the arrest record, and makes it hard to get a job. my mom always says why don't these guys work at mcdonald's? it is often difficult to even

get a minimum-wage job if you've got not just a criminal record, but an arrest record. it's easy to find looking on the internet. one of the ways that congress is focusing and state lawmakers are focusing on opportunities for people who've made mistakes as they spam the box campaign were employers are allowed to initially ask you about your. the point is for them to get to know you just like they get to know any other person interview. if you committed a crime that is relevant obviously if you have committed a violent crime we don't want you working around children. if you haven't been successfully rehabilitated. they are commonsense campaigns but the idea is to give folks who made mistakes a second

chance. >> host: the percentage of blacks in prison is way out of proportion with the total percentage of black sinuous population. generally gaston says i'm just not buying that white folks buying dope get a pass and lack folks selling dope get life in prison. larry colligan on the republican line. go ahead. >> caller: mr. butler, let's start from the beginning. work for a living. in the u.s. justice system i worked from 1977. i then retired from the u.s. penitentiary in 2003. they are not inmates. they call themselves convicts. you insult them when you call them and in may. they want to be called convicts. they start at an early age whether it is dope or any other crime under arrest record. it starts probably when they are

12 years old and inal justice system they have a rap sheet of nine or 10 arrests. people even get sent to the penitentiary. it is not the first time dope dealer they get sent to the penitentiary. beware of misleading the public when you state that on the program. they already have a cumulative arrest record before the judge comes down with the gavel and sends them to a penitentiary. >> host: larry, do you think drug laws should be eased back a little bit? >> guest: it depends -- >> caller: it depends. they do not send someone who has been arrested the first time to a penitentiary. someone is misleading the public. >> host: thank you. paul butler. >> guest: i don't think i said to renew but he said if you get a first ever asked but it sounds

like larry retired from marian before we experienced in the 80s and 90s this massive increase in our prison population. based on his morals that went into effect in the early 90s. i think maybe he is not up to date with who actually is incarcerated now, which again the reason why people like the coat or others are on board with having to reduce our prison population is because the folks who are serving time now and again about half are there for violent crimes in federal prison and there's not a lot of debate about whether they should be there. that is an area we need to investigate. the non-violent drug offenders about 50% of folks in the federal system i think again if no one wants to coddle criminals

and everyone is in favor of public safety, but it turns out too much incarceration is what we call krugman a gen x which means when you reach this tipping point where too many people are locked up that actually makes it go up not down. the reason why 32 states have reduced their prison population about the same time as they reduce their crime rates is because they want to coddle criminals. it is because they understand reducing incarceration is the way of making the streets safer for everybody. >> host: at international rates of incarceration. imprisonment rate per 100,000 population. you can see that the u.s. leads the 716 followed by rwanda, 492

russia for 75 and on down with some other countries including china at 121. ted in flushing, new york. independent line. >> caller: yes, good morning. i am surprised where we are for rwanda. let's be honest. before saying that a 12-year-old boy will be jailed again i am really shocked. how come we are now 12-year-old kids to be like that first of all. i don't understand that. but now i see hope. the hope is the bipartisan support. the system has to be reformed. it should be an educational place locking up these kids when they come up and have a chance to be in the society.

united sets a bad example for the world. we're talking about china and maoist china. you guys are the worst offender putting disproportionately people in jail. we have nothing to explain. >> host: thank you sir. i'll butler. >> guest: i totally agree with the comments about the juvenile justice system. that is an area we have to turn our attention to. we have people who are children who are being treated like adults. based on what we know about science biology, brain development that these are children who need rehabilitation who often need the kinds of mental health services they don't get in prison. often times now children get locked up with adults and shun jurisdictions because again

we've been so punitive. we have to be especially concerned about how we treat children because god says something about where we are as a civilized society. i appreciate you are putting up these charts with how the prison population has been going up and up and out. it is important to know if you put up a chart about the crime rate the crime rate has been going down and down. the rate of violent crime especially has dramatically decreased since the 1970s. that is good news for everybody. again, the fact that violent crime is going down all over the country number one said just the latest strategy might have something to do with that, but there's so many different police strategies that it's hard to say things like stopping for risk

for zero tolerance policy are responsible. worldwide, interestingly enough crime has been going down. not just a mistake,, but all over the world. >> host: a tweet, kidney or just address the crime rate in chicago? >> guest: jack i know that if a special concern for president obama because he spent a lot of time in chicago. he calls back home now. me too. when i look at what is going on better than the rates of violent crime. first of all we should say there is some widely encouraging news of violent crime in chicago has decreased at the same rate it is increased in most of the other parts of the country. violent crime is going down there. police are being smart about the

kinds of taxes they use. they are still using stop in for risk way to match. in new york, we have seen that doesn't really help unity is still invested in the system. the way that police catch the bad guys and i'm talking about murderers and it is not like you see on tv with them running master in tackling folks. the way the police solve serious homicide is by talking to people commented getting to know who won't went down to tell them what happened. the only way people are willing to talk as if they felt the system is legitimate that police officers are there to serve and protect them. one of the things the police officers in chicago are doing is becoming more and lasted in the

community. a lot of those issues are structural. i grew up in chicago. by anon sacrificed jesuit high school about because a lot of the schools, the public schools were failing. if i had on to the public school in the neighborhood that i grew up in on the southside of chicago, i don't know if i would be here talking to you as a law professor. a lot of those folks who went about outcomes including some of the people who are committing violent crimes in chicago didn't have the opportunity that i had and that president obama had. again, when we think about things like getting young women than men to graduate from high school when we think about learning trades, you don't have to be a lawyer.

i have a lot more time in d.c. finding a good electrician then i do a lawyer. some of these folks feel like they don't want to go to college, if they can learn a trade and have the opportunity that is the way to invest in communities to reduce the kinds of violence we have seen in certain areas of chicago. >> host: paul butler is also the author of let's get free. donna is the next call from north carolina. what is your variance in the criminal justice system? >> caller: i work for the federal bureau of prisons. it was sad after officially as a research facility. a professor at northwestern university set up the program and the inmates were there by choice. they had 30 days to decide to stay with the program.

if they stay if they say that the programs they were required to go to school and take a job. they had family day twice a year the idea was they would have to keep their relationship. they have to watch their own closed. my experience was they lived up to what i expected of them. i expected the best and they gave it to me. that'll give you the idea of the relationship. we also got staff who had a bunch of trouble adjusting to the mission at the federal inmates that came from penitentiaries. most of them figured out it was the best that was ever going to happen and did very well. on recidivism most of them came back. those inmates i would say were there for stupidity. very few were psychopaths but

most of them don't know what they're getting into. if they did mike back and what they could do with their lives. there should be reinstated and i think there should be every inmate should be there for five years in order to prepare to return home. they have associate degrees they are. university with a bs degree in business there. everything is fair. they are not doing it now. they've ruined that but they can reinstated. people did a lot of damage by trying to tell how did their institutions. it doesn't even that is totally unacceptable. i had 365 suitors have nothing

to do in 40 hours a week to get it undone. it's a wonderful institution. we have trained three regional direct heirs two directors at the bureau prison. call kathy hawk. she will tell you what that's about. or mike pettiford started they are. i think that it's a fantastic opportunity for people to work with the bureau. >> host: that is donna in woodlief, north carolina. professor butler. >> host: first of all, congratulations on breaking the glass ceiling in being one of the first women in your position. i am a big advocate for having more women in long for us. you look at a lot of the problems we see now in places like ferguson and in staten island. the manner much less likely to shoot a nonperson then mail. sometimes if we had a lot more

women law enforcement officers, we wouldn't see the level of problems we see now. in your story about giving these people who are locked up opportunities rather than sit around all day and watch tv, opportunities to get a ged get an associates degree or trade. not just the story. we know that works. you are absolutely right a lot of the rhetoric we hear from people like another conservatives, that is not evidence based. a lot of victor cohen and under the jail doesn't work. that doesn't make communities safer has once again the folks

come home. 95% keeps saying that because it is so important to realize that all this 2.5 million people locked up now more than 2,000,001 day will be back with us on the streets in our neighborhoods. we want them to have the opportunity when they are incarcerated to learn just like donna said, to learn a new trade. >> host: $19856.5 were spent on corrections. 2013, $51.9 billion spent on corrections. todd, beachwood, ohio. >> caller: this event what i called about. it is not so much that we need are women on the force because the same type of woman that would not shoot unnecessarily is the same type and that would not shoot unnecessarily. it's not a gender thing. more of a mental type. we just need certain types of

people in my enforcement. what i called about was the bulk of the problem with the six-month to three years people are getting primarily because of the flexibility that the prosecutors are being given that they should not have. here are two good examples i would like you to address. i do not believe it is rational for somebody to be locked up for any given amount of time if they weren't paid money to a court for supposedly the well-being of the child. >> a reminder, "washington journal" life everyday. you can see this on linux these.org. we will take you to capitol hill. the internet caucus advisory committee is talking about who sets music prices and whether congress has a role to play in digital music streaming. just getting underway live on

c-span2. >> host: around for almost 20 years and greeted a sick way to do educational discussions and kind of fair and balanced way on this really interesting new innovative policy discussions. these issues have gotten more and more interesting over the past 18 years. things are showing up today and thanks for the internet caucus cochairs who don't agree on the issues to believe it is really important. i would also like to extend my thanks to them because this particular issue i think we are having some fun with the title. we are not trained to pick a fight between congress and taylor swift, but they are given some latitude for me to hang myself in this particular discussion. i really want to thank them. if you want to follow the conversation, the hash tag is policy stream and we will be posting information in audio after the event and makes to the

c-span stream so you can join the conversation that way. we have an event next week on remote access to stored e-mail of constituents. that will be on our twitter account as well. who will be announcing shortly. every week we do a different thing. keep checking for upcoming events. let me just start off that i'm the least qualified person to moderate this discussion. i am not an expert but i am a person that's always shocked what the congressional role in government role in the music we listen to. it is interesting and not really well known. me being a total knee of five i might be in a good place to keep this at a high level and if we come out of this today explaining and having you better understand the role congress plays, how it affects the music

you listen to over your favorite services and how artists get compensated and are able to negotiate compensation would be great and that is what we're trying to do. we are not trying to get into discussions about legislation on the table. my understanding is the house judiciary committee is reviewing copyright in this area. they probably will introduce a bill at some point later on. other regions is also looking at this issue. in the meantime what they had a good understanding of how this works a general bubble. it's entirely possible you can take a four credit course at georgetown for gw and the entire semester maybe not really understand the entire marketplace. if you're an economics major you might want to do your phd thesis on the ratesetting aspect and you still wouldn't even understand fully that the entire complex space.

mike godwin wrote a piece and try to break down the music rates and saturdays practically complex. that's a good description. we are not going to get anywhere near. we will keep it high level and keep it at that. maybe at the end to alaska people have an opinion whether congress or taylor swift is more popular and internet streaming marketplace. let's start with taylor swift. he might have read she had a disagreement with the most valuable company on the planet a couple weeks back and wrote a polite letter and within 24 hours the most viable company on the planet changed its mind. it was a breathtaking display of power and people are like wow that is pretty amazing. her twitter followers just got smacked by how powerful she was. they played it to her to save

the whales and create sensible gun control and affect better climate change policy. you know it is the display of power that is interesting and at the core of how the ecosystem works. it also affects you. everybody listening to music on their favorite apps or stream is nervous that and accessing different ways. it is really a media to all of you and to the american people. that wasn't the case 10, 20 years ago. it is interesting that today everybody is invested in this. we wanted to frame this as a discussion not to pick a fight as i said but really to show the role congress plays in it. a bit of mangled legislative history. you could go back to the original copyright act for the constitution. i'm not going to do that.

i will go back only as far as 1995. 1995 congress passed the digital rights back. it is limited only to digital transmissions. basically internet transmissions and that is the scope of what we are talking about today. he created that in 1995 as a performance right. there hadn't been a performance copyright before and everybody here will correct me because i'm not an expert. performances the sound recording on your tape for your digital file, whether an mp3 of her hard drive for a streaming service on their hard drive is the sound recording and that is what he created. two rights we can get into detail about, but one was for noninteractive transmissions like you can't control what song you listened to.

you can fast forward one, but that is basically a lot of companies do this, the spot if i is the best known. the act requires them those services to pay a statutory license by the copyright board. that is one thing to control that space. also interactive internet transmissions where you can select the music you want pick the types of songs you want. you don't own them, that they are streamed to you. that is i guess the spotify model. that is the best well known. for that congress says you have to negotiate a license agreement. may have to negotiate the license. 1895 when they passed the act we can talk about pandora, but what were you doing musically in

1995? a lot of the hill were really busy being born. i don't know what they were listening to i i come is supposed to make it harder. it harder for a long time ago. 1995 there was no internet streaming. if i were to say who was remaining sick, no one raised their hand. even if they were it would be pirated material and you would want to raise your hand anyway. those are from like a college server tucked away from somewhere. there was no music streaming in 1995. first the latter part of the decade, you started to see more and more sophisticated piracy. you've also had mp3 players. i had a nomad. other people had rios. you would take your entire cd library and rip it onto your mp3 player that would only hold 12

songs that are really low bit rate. that was basically the late 90s. 2001 apple introduced a massive ipod music player. first it was 2001. you could put your entire, log. in 2003 itunes came out and you could download songs. one song at a time later goes up to 129. you kind of owns the song and now is the streaming situation where the internet is a grecian system of the day. the entire time piracy kept going. not saying i was running parallel of course. later it wasn't until later that pandora and other streaming services started coming into the fold. those are the noninteractive services are they kind of stream, fast forward one you get what you quiet in a certain

genre. that has grown tremendously over the past several years. while this is going in europe, there is a company called spot if i non-interactive services preselect interactive services where you select the songs you want to listen to. spot if i was growing in europe and finally washed up on u.s. shores in 2011. now we have the really amazing marketplace that gets more and more interesting and now we'll try to explain how congress has a role in all of this. i think to start us off at which reduced our speakers folks to layer on very simply the roles government has and how it all works out. we'll go to audience questions and answers them and will answer the question who has more power. i am going to my right with alex

ross, founder and principal of french advocacy. i like used to work on the judiciary committee. he also represents an important player in this space. we also have stuck to vice president for sound exchange, which is a company that literally was born out of the 1995 act and she can explain how that happened. to her right we have kevin erickson, an interesting advocacy group with a lot of education and things like that. and jonathan potter was that the developers alliance to kind of explain the apps on your phone and how you cannot internet services that i needed were detail. my understanding is taylor swift was not available to the panel which also says is therefore proliferates the curse. would have to have a panel of

100 people to represent every part of this ecosystem and that's not possible. we will do our best to lay this down. if i can start with jonathan because jonathan represents app developers and a variety of companies i mentioned. and music services in your pocket how does this all work? just a quick overview of that. john again. >> thank you. thank you to the internet caucus for inviting me. i was not listening to baby einstein. i was actually representing the streaming music company, which is historically known as music. the first stream in 1993 at xerox parc when they were testing the technology they brought a band demonstrated all the way to australia. so when i think of that internet

music and we are obviously not just talking about streaming which is considered straight performance, which is radio if you will come you think about the variety of services online today that have come and gone over the years. i group them into four basic business activities and then there's some twists and turns on each one. tim has asked me to talk about the business and the other folks will talk about the rights and royalties on them will circle around. to lay out your four basic business models one of them is internet radio. take your radio the internet listen to music other people are programming. but the purest sense of internet plus radio, think about kiss fm or whatever it is and they just happen to be streaming. that was the original -- that was mark cuban second company the one that made him the owner

of the dallas mavericks. he did very well. he sold that to yahoo! for $6 billion. yahoo! didn't do so well without one. that is internet radio. it goes all the way forward to people streaming on the internet and play music on the internet and that is your pandora model. we can talk about what it means to be interactive versus noninteractive. the basic level is preprogrammed or consumer influence. you can choose which song you hear but you can effect it. basic internet radio. pandora is the best model of that now. on demand radio think about a talk. you can specify which side you want to hear. specify to shuffle on the internet radio stream. you go to spot a five tiered you want to hear a mix of songs you like and you also say mix it up

a little bit. some of that on demand and some other prepackaged or you can also take it from your collection. they divided onto manchu box or some mix of that. your next traditional model that is essentially more to the internet and digital is buying music. some of you are old enough to remember sam goody. they also used to sell other things paraphernalia your parents didn't want you to have. purchased music at 99% download. 1399 and although not the firing of the site drug. once you own the music, today you can put it to whatever device you want. it comes primarily even though you're pushing your new player, the branding is interesting that

he wants to do higher bit rate streams, higher-quality streams and is now called as music from all the services young people listen to. he is clearly defined as my parents. i love no doubt that he put his music out on eight tracks. with the big deal about a lower bit rate stream. the most interesting business model for apps and digital music is traditional download or subscription services that let you do a whole variety of things. you pay $10 a month $8 a month $13 a month to spot a fight the new apple music. trying to remember their services. rhapsody cardio. what is that? great. those are services that let you do almost everything. you can stream prepackaged stations. you can stream music you

purchase. you can download conditionally. as fun as you pay your $9.99 you can listen to your music and take it with you wherever you want and probably even your hard drive in your car. cars have hard drives. as business models are out there. some of them free, some of them advertising supported. they sit for 30 days, 60 days 90 days and that salutary prescription price. some of them are prescriptions and they all mix and match in between. pandora for free is advertising supported. pandora as a subscription is ad free. but they are both internet radio and they are both noninteractive internet radio which means it's all under the statutory license we will talk about. some subscriptions offer family plans. i will tell you the story.

he was at a record company licensing and internet music company in the business development came in and said we want to license a service of two people can listen to the music at the same time and the record industry said we can't do that. we have to charge them double. the business development person came back inside i think we can let two people if they want because it's not one person will listen in the other person will steal it. let's give them a break and now you have the apple family plan another businesses do family plans on your cable subscription you can watch for tvs at once. the record industry has recognized the want to make this event has come a long way and all these services are legal. none of them have anything to do with piracy and you could argue they'll substitute for piracy which is a great thing. and they put billions of dollars

every year to artists and songwriters and publishers pocket and substitute for the fact power records doesn't exist anymore. thank you. >> that was great. thanks john. john had referenced as well in 1993 act with the sound recordings was for sound recordings. what you catch on tape and storing mp3. there are other rights are what makes this more complicated. google layer that on now. alex is in the best position to talk about his day of any other types of rights and how they influence conversations you hear in the news and on tv. you can explain the next layer of complexity. >> i also want to thank tim and the internet caucus for having me here. i want to start with a prop and see if this sounds they make it. ♪ everyone has heard that song i

assume. does anyone know who the band is? making trainer. does anyone know who wrote that song? so this is the core issue.ere are two copyrights in every piece of music that you hear. there is a copyright in the sound recording that making trainer made, the fact that it's her voice in the musical instrumentation. there is a copyright but there's also a copyright in the musical composition. someone sat down and wrote the lyrics to that song and with the musical notes played by the different instruments. you have a music composition and sound recording. for that song, making trainer was one of the writers. kevin k. this is the cowriter. you have some guy you have never heard of who is the writer of

the piece of music that was then recorded. kevin k. at issue would want to go see him in concert because you don't know him. he will probably not buy t-shirts with his face because you don't know him. he is a writer. that is what is job is and is a completely different copyright in a completely different business. i will talk about the songwriter because that is who i represented julia will handle the sound recording side. say you have these two copyrights. when you have a copyright, the copyright gives you the exclusive right, meaning you are the person who has the right to do certain things. for music the ones that are important are you have the exclusive right to reproduce to make copies of your work. you have the exclusive right to publicly perform your musical composition and the third

brightest are distributed. the two other rights don't implicate music so we won't talk about them. to get to the core of what the panel is about is you as a songwri have these exclusive rights. you don't actually have the right to go out and exercise rights in the free market in most cases. in most cases, your ability to license those rights to others who want to have them is regulated in one way or another. just give you a quick overview of what that is. when someone wants to publicly perform your music as a songwriter and this is kid in the 1995 act but only applies to sound recording. they had a right to perform their work since the first act was created in 1789. when you want to publicly perform a songwriters work a radio station, a bar, restaurant

concert venue, pandora, spotted by cable television, broadcast television, when many of the services want to perform music they have to get the rights from the songwriter. imagine how complicated it would be if the radio station had to go out and find and negotiate with the songwriters of all the music that you hear on a regular station. pandora is millions of songwriters. that just isn't inefficient -- you couldn't have that negotiation with the songwriters out there. >> host: the names of people you've never heard of. >> so you have this market problem from the life of the site folks who want to publicly perform music wouldn't be able to find the songwriters and actually have a negotiation with

all of them over the right. from the songwriter side if you are writing all about database and other stuff, do you want to drive around the country knock on the door of her bar and restaurant insipid indoor at and cut a deal with them? that is crazy. you'll spend your time on the business side and none on the creative side. how the market has fixed this and this has been going on since 1914 is what sprang up as pr is performance rights organizations. the oldest in 1914 has been around a hundred years. ascap has 550,000 songwriters chosen to be members and has given ascap the right to public performances. ascap has 550,000 members songwriter members from a repertory of 9 million songs in ascap is not in mice and resolve

the entities that want to publicly perform the music and takes in royalties from all the entities. over 700,000 licensees across america, takes in those royalties, tries to figure out whose music was played how much and distributes money to songwriters. so that business model that has come around since 1914 is an efficient way to make sure licensees and songwriters can meet and license the music. but in 1941 the justice department decided the two big licensors bmi about the same size decided to subject them to an anti-consent degree. since 1941 almost 75 years you have had the government as a backstop your, kind of setting the rules for how songwriter's music is licensed or public

performance. we won't get into too much detail, but that is one way the government regulates the marketplace. it says the government is going to control how race are sad and functionally in the end how much is paid by licensees to songwriters for performance of their music. that is the performance side and the regulatory regime that applies there. jonathan mentioned downloads. itunes and codify you may not know also involves copying because to do streaming you have to have a separate copy you send a stream from. that world of how songwriter's license reproductions, copies of their music to folks like apple or cds are also out people want to make copies. that is a completely different regulatory regimes congress has control because every reproduction is subject to what is called a statutory license.

congress in 1909 actually said if somebody wants to make copy of the musical composition the song that a songwriter created they will have a right to do so. they don't have to negotiate with the songwriter of the free market. congress is going to create in this case a three-judge panel sitting in the library of congress actually. three administrative law judges determined to rate a songwriter will be paid each time their music is copied. the rate today is 9.1 cents and 1909 it was 2 cents. it's gone up a little. that is how copies are regulated. third and last if there's one area of the marketplace were songwriters are regulated by the free market. every time a movie or television studio takes music and wants to

incorporate it into a movie or tv show they have to get the rights from the richer. they're making a copy of the musical composition to include a movie or tv show. background music, soundtrack, et cetera. the negotiation between the producer of the tv or movie and songwriters of free-market negotiation. they have to get the right and if they songwriter doesn't like what they are offered capital city, safe and sound, if they don't like the price they can say no. so those are the three big baskets and the ways functionally the songwriters licensing acts are regulated. ..

alex it is organization have really enabled songwriter to get compensated and focus on the creative and not on the business side. the marketplace for the performance rights that congress made in 1995 judy can explain more about how that has evolved and the role her company place in that. >> it's funny. so thought i would have to let a lot of groundwork but you guys have laid a lot of the groundwork for me. alec talked about the two

copyrights in every recording that you here. there's the composition from the notes and lyrics and the sound recording. the sound recording is that artists, the recording artist interpretation of that composition. then affixed permanently somehow to be a recording. before 1995 and 1998 before the performance right was created in those two laws there was no performance right for sound recordings under federal law. suddenly in 1998 there was and there was no one to collect the royalties for that performance right. as services to develop and as any to pay royalties develop, the industry collectively created an entity to collect of those royalties and that was sound exchange. so initially it was kind of this in the corner of an office

a group of people trying to figure out are we going to do this. as alec was saying on the composition side if you do go to every person who makes the recording and every copyright owner and figured out that is very time-consuming and complicated and probably would not have many of the services we have today if that was the way things had to work. so soundexchange was born and in 2003 became an independent nonprofit like the that represents the entire recording industry. signed artist, unsigned artists megastars local bands, major labels, indie labels and we represent all recording artists and copyright owners which is normally a record label but it can often also be the artist who decides to record for themselves and owns their own master

recordings. and i should also to our board reflexively represent the entire industry. our borders have representative of record labels, indie labels major labels and their trade associations, and have artists and their representatives and artist managers and unions. and every dollar of royalties is paid through soundexchange is split 50/50 between the copyright owners usually the record label anarchists, featured and non-featured artists. and that is something that is unique and is a reason that is a reason that artists love the soundexchange. it is a reason that people often point to soundexchange as a bright spot for transparency in the recording industry which is

a big issue a lot of people are talking about. the other things we do besides collecting royalties and distributing royalties we represent a go at the copyright royalty board which is the entity at the library of congress alex mentioned that sets the rates for all of these royalties. we also advocate on behalf of the industry to try to protect those rates and to support fair pay for artists and copyright owners. that's a really easy view of what soundexchange does. i had a more complicated if you want me to get into. >> not yet. will basically what you're saying is what it's your opposition to its the very high level, the goal to make sure our discovery people could get compensated quickly, services to get access to music and the most visually possible to get it out to people so they can listen in

a bright after the waste. waste. >> when we talk about that for just a second. the kind of the mouthful i like to say what soundexchange does is a nonprofit collective destiny by the copyright royalty board to collect industry but royalties paid for the public performance of sound recordings via non-interactive digital audio transmissions to u.s. listeners pursuant to the statutory licenses that congress created in section 112 and 114 of the copyright act are most of the first part of that since you guys understand because the terms have been defined by anyone else on the panel so far. you understand what public performance is, what a sound recording is sort of what non-interactive is. you understand it is audio not audiovisual so it's not youtube. it's only this part. but it is digital.

so it's not terrestrial which i know we're not going to get into that but that's the fact that terrestrial radio does not pay artists any royalty and never has is a big inequity in the industry students on your old car radio, am/fm you're saying whoever broadcast that does not pay the artist but they do come if i had a new car radio with wi-fi and it was streaming and/or, they do. >> yes. >> okay. >> getting complicated. >> but there are 2500 -- unless you think is all about spotify and pandora, their 2500 services that they royalties through soundexchange. it's webcasters like pandora. it's satellite radio which right now is just series ask them. am fm broadcasters want to simulcast online and is cable

and satellite, television systems that have music on them. the stations that are way up at the top in the big numbers under cable channels. so that's the complicated description. but it's important just in terms of history of it to understand, in 2005 in soundexchange made its first distribution of royalties that total distribution was $20 million have to copyright owners, have to artist. last year soundexchange distributed $773 million. so this is where there's exponential growth in the industry where everyone else you are hearing that industry revenue as a total is going down. we really are where technology and music meet. and whether its growth. part of the reason for that and this is limited to the question

of who is more powerful, taylor swift or congress, congress created this platform and this is, congress created this in 98 and this is the platform on which this whole industry was born. and al-qaeda $773 million last you initiative upon the culture and $900 million for artists pics of some definition of power are just money. taylor swift has become but. congress, this is when they but congress has just yielded like three quarters of a billion dollars for artists through the system spirit right spirit will keep the dialogue mind for the latest question. kevin, you've been asked to be a bit of clear but what we haven't talked about is taylor swift is she like to make and trade or she like liked a guy whose name i can never who wrote the song? >> we haven't even talked about that. where does the powers of taylor swift come from?

>> well, okay, lots to digest the president understands there's two kinds of copyright embedded -- is there a microphone? what do you know? everybody understands there's two kinds of copyright embedded in everything that you listen to get so there's the sound recording and there's the compensation. a sound recording -- record label but sometimes the artist themselves and the composition which compensates the songwriter and the publisher. got that? we understand there's different kinds of internet streaming. there's the non-interactive streaming which among other things funnels its royalties through soundexchange and then there's interactive stream. interactive streaming is set up giveaways that often requires direct negotiations with the owner of the sound recording which is usually the record labels. >> it's part of the act. con grade -- congress mandated

that they have to. >> not covered by the statute. >> they have to negotiate those licenses because they are not speedy's so congress -- >> the absence is why there have been to do that. been for non-regulated artist, if you want to get your music on some dark spotify you go to an aggregator of which is something like cd baby or these companies that can get your music stock in pretty much any on-demand listening environment. usually they take some kind of a percentage or a flat fee. got all that? is a lot to digest. you can start to understand why back in 2013 when head of the copyright office was giving a speech at columbia university law school about the next great copyright act she said something to the effect of music licensing is so complicated and broken that if we did the right we can

get the whole statute right. there's a lot of truth to that but partner musicians are so doing their best to navigate all of this different policy structures at a time when they are already often expected to a lot more than they used to do about keeping track of all these revenue streams and figure out how to patch it to get into something we simply an income. often serving as their own manager and publicist and trying to market their work in all these new places and keep track of these rapid about this and how it impacts them. so much has to be time to write and record and perform music. not easy. one of the things we do is try to make it easier by demystifying the system. we tried to take a a lot of information you just heard in sort of crystallized into a series of infographics but come and we did not but like even this is complicated. look a big this is. entity with you can get a copy of the said future of music.org

largest google of how the money flows. it is also useful for folks in the policy committee tried to wrap it around all the stuff. sometimes people see this and think why don't we just wipe it all over after after all of the middleman? sometimes well intentioned but it's -- as i said, musicians and songwriters don't have time to go around to every potential company that wants to license their they need digital services. many platforms. and the performance rights organizations. they need publishers, record labels distributors. not every artist needs all of them but many of them do. there's just a way to do it themselves. the important thing is all of the parker thing to be accountable and transparent. an important thing to understand about this in the policy context, artist interests align

with those partners so the time, maybe a lot of the time and then they will divert some of the time. it's important to get perspectives from artist themselves. preferably a diverse array of ours because different artists have different business models. where an artist is in the workplace is going to determine how they feel about a particular topic in the marketplace. with streaming, different artists have been excited about some aspects of these services and some of them concern and critical about some aspects of the student services. there's a lot of diverse opinions because it would with different expectations about the scale of their potential audience. they are at different stages in the grips of the goals are different. different genres have different business models. today rather than get too deep into the content of the different critiques i want to offer just a sandwich wrap it around his to and get you a framework for how to think about policy generally.

the question is what to artist need from streaming music and how did the decisions made by congress impact of them? there's two big categories. category one is access to audiences. and category number two is fair compensation. both are important. the access is important. the flourishing of new services has created an incredible opportunity for artists who in the past would've been shut out of the marketplace and unable to reach audiences to really start thriving and connecting people all over the country and the world. there are some serious questions that you ask about how the economic forecast a special artist who don't have the kind of massive scale reach and ambitions that taylor swift does. it can be difficult for congress to really know what the impact is going to be. in addition to all the licensing questions and the structures that are set up to allow for these different services there's a larger policy background of

decisions that congress is involved in that has infected way to streaming music landscape looks now. >> so i think as far as running out of time goes to think we are at, we have a good baseline going. we haven't gotten into what taylor swift is. is she a composer? a shia does she owner sound recordings? who issued? what issued? where does her power come from? >> oh, boy. what we do know is that she is a songwriter and performer -- >> so she has she has two different powers to control her music. >> she's also somebody who records for an independent label. that's been important industries in conversation to understand because she has a degree of

freedom to speak out about these industry structures and the ability to pull for a catalog from some services and when some services and when it could potentially be more difficult to choose record for a major label. you know that song we are never getting back together when she talks about her xp i was really upset about that. [laughter] >> she said something about some indie record that is good for my i thought that was funny because she's on an indie label. anyway -- [laughter] >> just one important thing to add is so taylor swift everyone here to this is what we're talking about, pulled her music from or threaten to and did pull some but the thing, she had the right because the recording artist who owns a recordings to pull the sound recording. she didn't have the right to pull the musical composition. so if some else wanted to record

the song you just mention it is a taylor swift saw and put it up on spotify for apple she would not have been able to pull that off. because again she's a member i think of bmi and they had to give a license. just to clarify shiv kapur sound recordings but she wasn't able to pull her composition. composition. >> so her powers are limited, by what? why would she be able to what is limiting her power? >> what's limiting her power is that the federal government has said that through the consent decree any member of bmi or ascap, the vast majority, 90% of songwriters and the u.s. has to license any service that ask for a license even before there's a price or a negotiation for a price. >> in spotify land she has power to pull a song since spotify. >> not the musical composition

spent by the performance. can shoot older songs from a non-interactive streaming service like pandora speak with the sound recordings but not the composition. >> not a sound recording no because we didn't talk much at what the statutory license means. but in the land of pandora -- >> which is a magical land. >> hypothetical speed of where they are relying on the statutory license. it gives them access to every piece of commercially available music as long as they pay the statutory rate assigned to them and we can talk about, someone will talk about that a little bit. the artist does not have -- >> congress gave that invincibility to pandora against taylor swift? >> not just pandora. >> those types of things can we go through each service and talk

about whether -- even experts can get confused about that stuff. there's a chart mike godwin put together, like everybody has a chart about rates and how much this entire ecosystem is dictated by the rates they charge and is a fair market value, other types of economic analysis that yield? this would make your head hurt even more so than the chart that kevin had. rates is also heavily regulated by the government or the government is involved in different ways that can kind of control how these rates come it's not just fair market right? >> that's right. >> the right standard is so the statutory license -- [inaudible] >> here we go. if you want to start a digital screening service in the united states tomorrow come anybody in this audience decide to to start a digital streaming radio service, you have two choices. you can go to every just on the

sound recording side, alec has talked about on the composition side, but you can go to every record label or every copyright on and try to negotiate a rate with them. and for those you can start your service with the mobile able to negotiate a rate with and figure it out and create a back end in and wait to pay all of those people. or you can go to the copyright office, fill out this one page form that has eight questions i can some of which are multiple choice, given a $40 check and you can have access to every piece of commercially available music ever used in your streaming service. and next thing you do is you call soundexchange and you say this is the kind of service i have what's the rate that i pay? to witnesses and you pay a that a rate set by the copyright royalty board.

the right standard used to set the royalty rate is in the law for webcasters. it is a fair market value rate. for satellite radio, it is a different rate. >> we get into come we can go to all the different -- >> you asked how the different rates and from a composition side just to point out, there's some really crazy results that happen because of the different regulatory structures. pandora streaming all about that base right one song contains two copyrights sound recording, music composition. without the music composition to be nothing record. without the recording to be nothing to listen to the what pandora pays to the songwriter and performer are completely different amounts. the performer gets 12 to 14

times more than the songwriter does. because we are two different records are structures that use two different processes to set the rate. there's a crazy results that happen to kind of conflicting at different regulatory regimes spent a gets more complicated. i promised i would go complicated. i promise to return to cuba complicated. i promise to return to cuba to get either hard stop at one but have to ask these folks at the end of the conversation, who has more power, congress or taylor swift? i had time for one question. does anyone have one? the gentleman in the back. please make it a quick question. >> transatlantic deal but nothing about music was involved and what does that mean? the deal obama just signed. the transatlantic partner -- >> there's no music involving that and that is a commodity out of the u.s. spent on not familiar with the deal you're talking about spent let's go to the next question. does anyone have one? in the front row.

[inaudible] -- there's another party in these transactions which is the people who buy them. if somebody goes out to buy a cd come to get out of it they can do, they can give to the city donated to a charity, you can't do that with digital finger i wonder if you guys could address the sense of that. the sense of it as a license as opposed to a physical product if you get rid of it. >> the first doctor has protected consumers rights to resell copyrighted material if they are reselling are or giving away, transferring if you will a specific item you purchased it if you buy a book you can go to a used bookstore, sell it to them. the same is true for a cd. i believe that has been looked at a couple of times in the context of digital product. the courts have if i recall correctly essentially said when you're giving away a digital

download that you purchase your actually reproducing the download in order to give it away. unless you hand someone your hard drive, you're not giving away a specific purchased item that you're giving away a copy of the purchased item. the first sale doctrine doesn't want to copy still a very specific item you purchase. >> it gets more complex petition to look at your terms of service and it says i this song. it could just be a license. you have to be very clear about that. it gets complicated if there's been talk about having a first sale doctrine. we had a whole panel of this, that one question from an account panel of some of the you can download the mp3 and you can own it as far as i am concerned. the panel is called first sale no resale and to those of the very question and at the end i asked the panelists if the download something, i mentioned the service do they validate

and it was like copyright professors and they were like i have to go look at the terms of service. i'm not sure. it's complicated and again, if this is competent enough, that is just one slice of the entire pod. that's a great question. the answer is not easy. so i guess with my four minutes left let me just go down to who wants to take the question first? who has more superpowers in the internet music marketplace congress or taylor swift? is there any limit to her power? >> i think alan laid out, i think and what the limit, there is while the is a statutory license, that is the limit because she can't take her recordings off of services that are using a statutory license. but if you want to take a crack at the rest of this -- >> on the composition side,

clearly the government is more powerful. the government controls, tells her she can't take your music off as a songwriter. >> she joined ascap or bmi. that was her choice. so she doesn't have to join one of those services be because you actually couldn't afford a bunch of salespeople to go read a license every radio station if she wanted to spend all that 700,000 of them. >> so you're saying because she is uniquely powerful she could come just because of her sheer skill she could rise above that particular regulatory -- >> any songwriter can choose the unregulated nonconsent -- >> actually it is invitation only. not anyone can join. spent i bet they would give her an invitation. [laughter] >> go back to taylor swift, she on this is tremendously powerful in getting the message about

supporting fair pay for artists out of there. congress right now is looking at copyright issues, and we spent a lot of time up here talking about look, there's one basic thing we should do in the license incorporate you should make sure that artists and copyright owners have opted to get fair market value for their work. that's the same thing -- >> just beyond her rights in the music, she has influence. so if she wrote like the looks of the most about the country on the planet, she wrote like a polite letter to congress, with a turnaround in 24 hours speak with either the. they are people condition we could ask. would write a lot of polite letters to congress and it hasn't worked yet. >> polite letters of our -- are always best.

>> we should recognize the power that the independent sector has as well. i used to think taylor swift passionate as you stuck on the alpha stage thing out of national park on monday night last night's big she could just fly off of the? spin people are going to use kismet as a proxy for our scum especially artists who are sticking up for themselves and saying that they should have a voice in how the new digital workplace is structured and should just be about competing business interests, then i would say the best outcome and the most power happens when artists and congress work together. and create some ongoing work and relationships to establish some dialogue and craft some collaborative policy solutions. that's democracy and that's where the real power comes from. >> jonathan? >> i think the most powerful recording artists are the ones who can stop presidential campaigns from using their songs without their permission.

look taylor swift is a magnificent park in her career she has influence which i think is not to be confused with power. so she certainly she can't undo the statutory license and statutory license page for the very same amount her stranded pays an indian artist and nobody's ever heard of from one string to one person so that's a pretty interesting limitation on our also. >> if i may jump into this. i think if you think about how the american public response to the two different entities, and poll numbers are we to look at the polling for the united states congress and what kind of lives they put out. it isn't so high. but i think in poll numbers in american public i think taylor swift is coded to win and that whether it's an interesting question. hopefully to serve as kind of a baseline as congress started reworking some of these things come public and will be a baseline understanding a little bit of that.

you really have to get a ph.d or take semesters of school for the. is complex but hopefully everybody is invested in public congress can make make a decision things that are coming down the pike i want to thank the panelists and thank everybody, and thanks everybody. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> former new york congressman michael graham was sentenced to eight months in prison today following an investigation. roll call writing about the sensing of the former republican representative the former republican representative for tax evasion to u.s. district court judge of the eastern district of new york on friday handed a sentence at the brooklyn court around noon. according to local media reports, she had choice words saying his moral compass needed some reorientation. the prosecutors argued think you should receive between two and two and half years in prison for his offense. while grimm's lawyers argued the former congressman should only receive probation. though grimm pled guilty to the

fourth count which involve filing and accurate tax returns to the irs he faced numerous other charges related to the manhattan restaurant he owned. the charges included mail fraud, wire fraud hiring undocumented immigrants, failing to report more than $1 million, and perjury.

>> c-span2 brings you the best access to congress live debate and votes from the senate floor hearings and current public policy events come into the weekend it's booktv with

nonfiction books and and authors live coverage the book festivals from around the country and to guide the scenes look at the publishing industry. c-span2, the best access to congress and nonfiction books. >> with congressional committees set to begin work next week on the iran nuclear agreement, we bring you a discussion on the potential challenges of that agreement. thursday the arms control association hosted a panel of former government and security officials if they agreed if iran takes steps to comply with the deal and it could lead to positive international partnerships in the future. this is about 90 minutes. >> well, good morning, everyone. welcome to the arms control association's briefing today on the p5+1 iran nuclear deal. the outcomes come implementation and verification. i am daryl kimball, executive

director of the arms control association and we are an independent nonpartisan organization that we were established in 1971 to provide information, ideas, solutions to address the threats posed by the world's most dangerous weapons. we have organized today's event to discuss recently concluded p5+1 at iran nuclear deal which is among the most complex and consequential of the nuclear age which began seven years ago today with the first atomic bomb which was detonated in new mexico. this agreement followed over two years of diplomatic intense negotiations involving seven nations including longtime adversaries. our position of the arms control association has intensively followed iran's program at the diplomatic efforts to rein it in. we have over the spirit of time sought to identify practical and technical policy solutions to

address the many different challenges on this issue so that the negotiators can help arrived at the to prevent a nuclear-armed iran. our analysis after looking at the documents which is over 100 pages, quite substantial, is that they can't effectively and verifiably block iran's potential uranium and plutonium. that's a view shared by a wide variety of nonproliferation security experts. and we let it will be a net plus for nuclear nonproliferation, the effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and for use in regional security. congress now has 60 days to review this complex agreement and we believe that each and every member will take a serious look at this agreement, get the

answers to the questions come and there are many questions come and consider the benefits and the alternative. and so to contribute to this debate we've gathered three top notch experts were going to discuss the agreement, how it works, what its impact will be. and we will start with the arms control association director for nonproliferation policy, kelsey davenport. she's been the author of our major research reports and policy briefs on this issue and she's been very closely monitoring the talks for more than four years or so. i think she is recovering from her latest tour of duty two and half weeks in vienna the site of the final round of the talks. next we'll hear from richard nephew who is former principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the the u.s. department of state and director for iran on the national security council staff. so he was one of the negotiators up until the beginning of this year. is not the program director for

economic statecraft, sanctions energy markets at the center on global energy policy at columbia university in new york and as a nonresident senior fellow at the foreign policy center at brookings. then we're going to hear from ilan goldenberg to a senior fellow and director from the east security programs at the center for american security and foreign policy and defense expert with extensive government experts covering iran's program. after their opening comments and remarks about the agreement come its impact can we will take your questions. i just want to make a final observation before ask kelsey to talk about the nuclear nonproliferation elements of the agreement. like any diplomatic agreement this one is the product of give and take it's not perfect but if you look at it as a whole we think it is very strong and is anyways stronger than the framework that was reached in early april. by the p5+1 and iran.

yet it is clear already just a couple of days after this agreement was concluded that many critics believe that by rejecting the agreement but by increasing sanctions pressure on iran from the u.s. and so coerced, convinced village of iran to dismantle its nuclear program or agree to better terms. i think, many people think i think the president thinks because we heard him say this yesterday but this is basically a dangerous delusion. it isn't a better deal on the horizon if congress somehow blocks his agreement with bayer -- there will be very tough negative consequences. we will have broken with our european allies. the necessary international support for iran related sanctions will dissipate or iran would not be subject to limits on his nuclear programs could expand its program. we would lose out on enhanced inspections. the risk of nuclear-armed iran and the conflict with grow.

a lot is at stake and in the coming weeks we hope congress is going to take a hard look at the agreement, what it does and the alternative. so with that let me turn it over to kelsey davenport and then we move directly onto our other speakers. thanks. >> thank you, turn one and thank you all for being here. i think it's morning. i'm still quite sure what time zone i'm in. so want to talk to the most about the nuclear elements of the deal and unblockable able to touch on all 150 pages of the agreement, during the question and answer we can certainly explore the areas that i don't touch on and will be happy to take any questions. but from the perspective of the arms control association this is a very strong agreement from and nonproliferation perspective. in many ways exceeded expectations of what we thought they could agreement would need to achieve to block iran's pathways to nuclear weapons and put in place an intrusive monitoring and verification regime that would ensure quick

detection of any covert activity. know, this deal is not perfect but it is good enough and needs the u.s. nonproliferation goals to safeguard u.s. national security and it's good for regional security as well. to to get into first of some of the details. the parameters that were agreed to in april, particularly on their uranium enrichment, were detailed, strong come and from our assessment with these parameters in place it would take iran more than 12 months to produce enough material for one nuclear weapon. that's about 25 kilograms of uranium enriched to above 90%. that will be achieved a reduce the iran's centrifuges from 19,000 down to 6000 of which 5000 will be operating. iran's stockpile will also be capped at 300 kilograms. all of that we knew. what we get from the final deal on a number of details that

strengthen the assessment that iran can quickly move towards nuclear weapons. want to do things it becomes clear in this deal is that all of the texas education machines will be removed. all of the infrastructure, the piping, that will all be taken out and stored under iaea seal. these seals will feed directly to the agencies with greater assurance that if iran were to try to access these machines the iaea would immediately know. also it's important to note iran will be using these machines to replace and repair any broken machines. iran will not be producing any additional centrifuges unless the stockpile of machines reduces to under 500. inside iran is going to use time to build up its centrifuges to quickly deploy them later is false. and it will be, these machines will be counted and inventory under the deal.

so again these are provisions that had a greater level of confidence. also we have more information about the stockpile. iran agreed to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. so uranium enriched to about three points 67% or reactor grade, from the approximate 10,000 kilograms it has now down to 300 kilograms. that include uranium in all forms. iran will not be able to simply convert the gas into oxide oxide can be converted back to gas and further enriched. this is the entire stockpile will be capped at 300 kilograms. any scrap mature that is in process that's enriched for 3.67% or even up to 20% will be turned into fuel plates for the research reactor. the nature that can't be turned into steel plates way to be shipped out of the country, diluted, are mixed in the form

that it cannot be enriched for the. so again additional steps iran will take to ensure that there is not scrap material lying around that can be enriched further, providing the assurance iran cannot obtain the material necessary for a bomb within under 12 months. has also been some concern about the fact the agreement leaves about 1000 centrifuges at the fourth of the silly which i ran originally began to build in secret but deepened among the city of qam. -- fordo facility. these machines can then be transitioned back to uranium enrichment. that leaves about 600 machines that are either. the rest of the centrifuges and associate infrastructure will be removed and to be placed under seal back up the natanz facility

which is what where the 5000 operating centrifuges will continue to produce enriched uranium. iran can't take this machines back to fordo, began operating can quickly and use the facility to produce enriched uranium. the iaea would be able to detect any of those moves because the centrifuges are stored off-site and because the iaea will have access on a daily basis if you wanted to the fordo facility. this is silly really does not pose a threat for the duration of the limitations there, which is 15 years. so very strong on the fordo facility. want them to criticism that britain has against this deal is what will happen after 10 years? in 10 years i ran how iran committed for 10 years to operate 5060 of its ir when centrifuges. iran is not going to go over a

cliff in 10 years. this agreement makes very clear that the work on advanced centrifuge machines will be limited and they will be phased in in such a way that one day after 10 years iran cannot deploy thousands of centrifuge and then the weeks away from attaining material for a nuclear weapon. so don't love it more closely iran currently has about 1000 advanced centrifuge machines in various states that it's natanz pilot production of its of the. iran will have a few months to finish up the testing with some of those cascades and then it will remove nearly all of the advanced machines and store them under seal. during the duration, a 10 year duration, iran will be allowed to operate one ir format michigan won ir five michigan won ir six machine and one ir

eight machine for eight years. it can test these machines with uranium but it cannot use these machines to accumulate enriched uranium. so again we are not going to see a proliferation of advanced centrifuge machines that iran can quickly use to break out. after about eight and a half years iran will be able to test about 30 ir six machine than 30 ir eight machine. and at that point they can begin producing about 200 of each of these models for you but to not be producing the rotors for these machines. so i'll round year can when iran begins to transition these machines come it's important to note its capacity will remain relatively stable for the next about three years. [inaudible] >> i'm getting to that capacity. smooth capacity as a measure of efficiency of the centrifuge

machine. so that means the capacity of about 5060 ir when centrifuges will remain constant as new machines are introduced. so if an ir-6 machine has 10 times the smooth capacity of an ir-1 machine to if iran introduces an ir-6 machine, they have to remove 10 ir-1s. service again it ensures that we will not see a ramp up in iran's nuclear capacity. immediately after sort of a 10 year restrictions on just using ir-1s who enriched uranium expire. it's important to note that we should not view any of these elements in isolation. in addition to these restrictions on the number of machines that are being produced, iran's procurement of materials that can be used for centrifuge department will also be monitored by the joint

commission which is set up through the deal. any changes that iran wants to make through its r&d will have to be approved by the joint commission. so if iran starts to move our try and sort of move away from the r&d plan to submit to the iaea as part of its additional protocol it will become clear quickly to the joint commission. so one of the other areas where there's been a lot of questions relates to the transparency and the marching and verification element of the deal. this is something that under the arms control association we are very concerned about. because of iran's illicit nuclear activities in the past. but we feel that the intrusive inspections and monitoring and verification regime produced under this agreement will provide the highest degree of confidence that iran cannot pursue nuclear weapons either at its declared facilities or covertly. so first at the declared

facilities, iran will have to expand its nuclear declaration under its additional protocol which iran has agreed to implement and then ratified within eight years of the agreement. the additional protocol is an agreement between iran and the iaea that expands upon iran's comprehensive safeguards agreement. it expands the number of declared sites that it gives inspectors greater access, access on short notice to inspect the site. and on top of this agreement lays down the number of provisions that allows for continuous monitoring across iran's entire fuel supply chain. that's 25 years of the uranium mines and mills and 20th at the centrifuge production shop and then the continuous monitoring at natanz and fordo as whether it is into this means that if iran wanted to covertly pursue nuclear weapons, they would need to replicate the

entire fuel supply. they would be defined a new source of uranium ore. they would need to invent -- convert it into gas and then need to enrich it. these are large programs if you will not be able to hide this in a basement or even in a warehouse at a military facility. now, another check sort of his covert, the concerned about it over nuclear weapons program comes with the increase access to be granted inspectors under the additional protocol. it's clear in the deal that if concerns arise about illicit nuclear activities the iaea will be permitted managed access to sites of concern including military sites. managed access means that iran can states and conditions to protect sensitive military information, but it's important realize that ultimately will be the iaea's decision about whether or not the conditions i

ran places on access are adequate. if the iaea feels like they are not adequate there's an adjudication mechanism in place that will decide if the iaea should be given expanded access to iran and iaea cannot come to a decision within 14 days of the access, the joint commission which includes members of the p5+1 countries, the european union and iran will have seven days to decide on access. that's decided by a consensus. so five of the eight members. that means i ran china and russia together cannot slot access. and then iran will have an additional three days to comply with the joint commission's recommendation. so in total in the iaea wants to access a site, they can only be blocked from doing that for 24 days. 24 days may be time for iran to remove any equipment that it is

put in place but it isn't enough time for iran to eradicate any indication that illicit nuclear activities have taken place. that's in part due to the very sophisticated environmental sampling at the iaea can conduct. so these layers really demonstrate the strength of the marketing and verification. and i think it's worth noting, too, we consider monitoring and verification by looking at the iaea. but it isn't just the iaea that's going to have its eyes on iran's nuclear program. to the national intelligence organizations of the united states, other european countries come and i'm sure a visual will continue to watch iran very closely. in short to sum up i think that director of national intelligence james clapper said this is a solid of a verification regime as you can do. no one is going to provide you 100% guarantee but together it

provides the highest degree of certainty that iran is not covertly pursue nuclear weapons. also i think it's important to note iran's nuclear decision-making generally has been guided by sort of a cost-benefit analysis. with this deal in place the cost of achieving becomes exponentially higher. because this is an agreement that iran voluntarily signed onto, and within the agreement that are further commitments by iran not to undertake any exponentially to nuclear weapons development. if iran is going to be violating this deal, that it is agree to voluntarily come it will -- we'll see an extremist on reaction by international community. the are a few additional elements that are think are important and worth noting that a don't think has gone much coverage so far. there are conditions where iran

cannot export any nuclear deal court technology unless it's approved by the joint commission. i think that's important to think about the spread to contain the spread of these technologies. they would be joint work on the fabrication of two elements which provide iran the ability then to fuel the arak reactor using domestic fuel that it produces. and also if there are concerns about noncompliance there will be sort of a time bound sort of a 35 day period that consists of the review by the joint commission to review by the ministers if necessary the really assures that any part is not satisfied then to make and move on and take the case to the security council. so there are a number of other provisions in this deal to but just add to its strength and amplify the nonproliferation value. finally moving forward, congress now has the opportunity to weigh

in on this deal. but with the power that congress has to vote on the agreement comes a great deal of responsibility. and if they cause or prevent this deal from being implemented, i think they need to buy the consequences can which servant will likely lead to escalation on the part of iran escalation sanctions from the u.s. side and could increase the chances of a military conflict. so when looking at this deal is important that congress the value is the deal on its merits. doesn't block iran's pathway to nuclear weapons? yes. does it put in place interest of march and verification? yes. does it provide recourse in the case of violation? yes. really also considered against the alternatives. it is a better deal out there. we have heard about the need for anytime anywhere inspections. those are not necessary for the international atomic energy agency can do its job with the flexibility granted to it under the additional protocol. we have heard that more pressure

would perhaps induce iran to make greater concessions. i think i do like this deal that allows iran to say it made its strategic objectives of retaining limited so they nuclear program and receiving sanctions relief gives iran greater buy-in to the agreement that it makes the deal more sustainable because iran sees incentives to comply. i think this idea that more concessions were necessary would not produce necessary a stronger deal. also again i think it's important that when evaluating this deal we don't miss the forest for the trees. all of these elements need to be viewed together. if we look to closely at any one particular detail, we may miss the symbiotic relationship between the entirety of the package. ultimately this deal removes the threat of an iranian nuclear weapon. it's good for u.s. security.

it's good for regional security and i think you deserve the support that policy makers here in washington. >> think you very much for that overview and details on some of the new elements and jamaican sanctions. we will turn to the issue now and how that relates to the agreement from richard nephew. richard, thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me at thanks everybody for being here. i was going to touch on three points to do with the sanctions relief issue. first i wanted to touch on the contents of the relief and a timeline and sequence of how it would all be rolled out. second i want to touch on what is left. i think walter is a sense out there that this means the entire u.s. our initial sanction regime has been taken away to that's simply not true. some of the sanctions remain in place franklin going to continue to have a iran simply to give and take advantage of some of the relief which may be in and of itself a future problem. lasso want to touch on the impact of sanctions relief and

how the iranian economy to have you ever in population and that the rainy security apparatus may use the benefits of sanctions relief. first off i can say in terms of the content i have a much easier job than kelsey because they sanctions relief package is forward. is very direct and fairly broad. ..

so while there's talk about signing bonuses in billions of dollars fighting into iran before a single centrifuge has dismantled its awful. the winter release is structured at this point in the way videos and plays, iranians are not going to see anything beyond the joint plan of actions continue in relief until they've done their part. now when they have done their part, the release they are going to get is going to be substantial. in the judgment of myself in the administration, it was worthwhile to get the nuclear concessions. so what is in play. first off on the u.s. sanctions discussed here are secondary in nature. they do not include the u.s. primary embargo off the table with the exception of a few specific licensing. what the united states has offered to do is provide the sanctions it imposes on foreign companies interactions with

iraq. if you are a dp total any companies that reside in the world, you are not able to do business with iran after the iranians have been the nuclear steps they are supposed to do. it is across a wide range of sectors. in terms of the sale of products and financial services transactions come insurance transportation will be a wide range of economic activity they will be able to do. with foreign companies and foreign actors subject to their own laws. the way that the timeline has been set up, we are now in a period vote leading up to the adoption die. every single country part of the p5+1 has to go to its national legislatures have by and for

deal. upon the clock's inner and i don't think that's possible given our own 60 day clock in the united states, the iranians will start to take steps and this will include removal center fuchsias in the modification of the iraq reactor and other nuclear things described. for the united states european union, there is a requirement that takes the waivers and legal modification to sanctions that will start upon verificatverificat ion that the iranians have done but there was he supposed to do. there'll be promulgation of regulations and executive orders and things along those lines. they are all tied to a trigger and not as a report by the i.e. director general at the things the iranians will supposed to do has been done. a variety of estimates as to how long this could potentially take. we can talk about this is

beginning to question it would be easily 46 months before iranians would be able to have achieved primarily the removal of centrifuges. is theoretically possible it could go faster for 46 months is a good timeline. we are talking about april ,-com,-com ma maybe march in the iranians will be a lot to achieve sanctions and start to see new business start to flow. that is important because that basically means for the time being the iranians are having sent a message at his post to do and we will see the iranians take the steps they are required to do to see a dollar again. i remember vividly upon a suggestion iranians were somehow going to stop obligations before the deal becomes implemented. frankly the scope and scale suggest that would not be the case here. there is basically a hiatus in

terms of additional sanctions for eight years for the iaea reaches a broader conclusion of the program whichever comes first. during this time really full access and iranians will take advantage of it, but they will also be under restrictions. one of the most important ones i want to touch on is the procurement channel and how it relates to the sanctions. under this eight year time period, the iranians are going to have to go to the procurement channel establishment of the joint commission to ask for any nuclear related items because the nuclear related security council restrictions remain in place and they will remain in place require iran to describe these items and submit itself to many as verification checks to ensure they are actually going where they are supposed to be going. and this is to insist the restriction as well as still

being utilized part of the sanctions regime in place. the procurement channel itself looks and another two years down its adoption until the u.n. security council requirements themselves are canceled in 10 years time. there will be modification to other parts of the security council infrastructure and other legal instruments. including the united states in the e.u. this primarily deal with the liberation related items and potential sources of concern. it is notable if you look at the tax what is put in is not iran will get to import what it wants to import from anyone who wants to import, rather from a u.s. iran will from that point forward beecher did like anybody else, which means still subject to u.s. sanctions if we were to find things going on we had concerns about.

that is basically an in terms of sanctions. iranian still get anything until after they've implemented nuclear obligations that take between four to six months after the 90 day period nothing again for a number of years thereafter. the question therefore becomes what is left. a number of specific restrictions will remain in place but the ability to acquire nuclear related items i wanted the fourth. but that is not the limit of it. u.s. sanctions with respect to terrorism and human rights will remain in place. in the u.s. will remain in place with the exception of very specific licensable transactions involving the commercial planes. however, and that provision is clearly dated they have to be used for several years as. if the united states were to find the brand-new boeing that arrived in tehran was now

funneling arms into a side that would be cause to terminate the license. this also means iranians will have to be on their best behavior with respect to planes because they are quite obvious and as they discovered come of the united states has the ability to detect what planes are used for what purpose is an identifiable to the international community. iranians also have to deal with sanctioning of a number of people loosely described as bad guys including the iran revolutionary guard corps, the counselors which remains under sanctions. solo moniker will remain under sanctions and a lot of talk about this so i'll take a brief moment to describe what is contained in the deal. the solomont he will be delisted by the u.n. and e.u. because he was there for nuclear related

relations. in the united states he was for terrorism. that means he stays in place as the sanction individual until such time as he starts engaging in things we consider to be terrorism. i don't think that is all it event. this is also important because the united states is not removing infrastructure of use is to these residual sanctions and powerful and that includes the important tool of that investment back section 104. in this provision in the united states has exerted a lot of pressure on me financial system with respect to entities. basically the law provides the united states to sanction those who conduct transaction on behalf of u.s. designated people. if listed people individuals and entities go down in the nuclear related targets every minute

that it will not go away for terrorism human rights and other related targets. i run a soapy under the pressure of having to face financial sector cut off for all those entities individually on the list. which means institutions like the u.s. designated bank for terrorism related purposes will remain as well. by the way -com,-com ma any additional targets to the u.s. identified in terrorism and human rights violations also are potentially subject to the same. iranian still have to worry about what could happen to their financial dirt if in fact the amp up and start using banks we are delisting now for different purposes. i think it is important at this juncture to note the sanctions relief will not be this end-all be-all restoration and renaissance for iran. it will do a lot.

the very point some sanctions remain in the fact there was reputational and business risk attached to doing business in iran means the sanctions will take a long time to mature. vermont activists is really good because that means for those of us concerned about iran's ability to do awful things in the region it means there is a way of producing and controlling behavior because if we continue to identify entities in terrorism the iranians will have to deal with the consequences of that. they are going to be under the same threat with respect to these institutions that they were yesterday, five years

ago -- [inaudible] when you add that to the fact a lot of businesses will be concerned about the possibility of snapback you can see there is going to take a long time for there to be a resurgence in a lot of long-term trades in iran. my own expectation is the iranians will see a lot of short-term business deals purchases of oil things people can do if they need to for the initial couple of years. this is simple prudence on the part of international business. it doesn't make a lot of sensitive multibillion dollars worth of investment when you have the risk is not back not compliance by name or some other can turn in hot water in washington as well as stockholders. there may be some businesses willing to do this but i would add they would build causes into the contracts to get out of iran quickly if in fact there were to

be a reversion of sanctions. the business operating environment will be different that it will be another countries in the middle east and this would frankly be notwithstanding because iran is still a difficult place to do business with south. bureaucratic red tape in tehran is a cumbersome and difficult to deal with this anywhere else in the world. it is notable that they don't find the current contract with respect to oil services is all that attractive and they're looking for better terms. it speaks to the fact will take time for rain is to get their own bureaucratic process and overcome resistance on the part of companies to really plunge back in. iran is going to get a benefit and a real threat the longevity is the benefit is too slow and there is a very significant risk the iranians at some point say we are not getting what we need and at that point you can see

them say we need to reconsider terms of the deal. the sanctions in iran is favorable to the p5+1. it will provide advantages but it is not something that is overnight change the iranian economy. it will take time and there are ways to control it further. thank you. >> thanks a lot, richard. i was helpful. and i will talk about the regional security dynamics related to this agreement. >> thank you, darrell and everybody for being here and for having me. i thought what i would do is talk about the three major actors in the region reacting to this agreement on what will happen there. the first being iran come the second saudi arabia and the gulf states and the third is real. i should start from the position because of the non-proliferation benefit of the agreement i agree

with my colleagues here that this is something in the national interest of the united states and we need to be pursuing. regional ramifications are much are complicated and next and negative downsides we have to manage with some of our traditional partners over the next two years. doesn't mean we should let the tail wag the dog and not do something in america's national security interest is something we have to deal with. starting with how we expect to shake on iran over the next two years you hear the two schools of odds. one is president rouhani. they are none of the revolution. i don't think they are looking for liberalism to break out tomorrow in tehran. but they are more pragmatic when they weigh the economic benefits and international engagement versus support for terrorism and things like nuclear program and are more interested in the first

set of entries. are they going to gain more influence and be able to reflect a more pragmatic iranian foreign policy? rouhani was the lack based on the fact that he was allowed to come to power by the supreme leader based on the fact he would get the sanctions relief and get this nuclear agreement. he will have tremendous credibility and leverage. we have parliamentary elections in iran next march with an interesting time in terms of sanctions that richard just laid out and see if the pragmatic faction can pick up more inside the reigning system. i do think that you could now have more influence in other areas of iranian foreign policy or they haven't had as much effect. on the other hand you can make the argument the hardliners are going to double down. they're not going to want to see

this deal leads to more liberalization inside of iran. it will take a harder line and use some of that money that comes in to increase support for their dignities in syria and iraq and yemen and elsewhere in the region. i would argue the most likely scenario is both of these things will happen at the same time and will end up with an iran likely in the next few years with an intense political competition amongst the various factions around the supreme leader who ultimately make the final decision. khomeini is someone who leans towards the hardliner perspective, very skeptical of the united states not left iran in years, but also somebody who rules by consensus. if all the key factions come and say this is what we should do he goes in that direction. i don't see him persuading rapprochement in the days ahead. but he is going to pass some

point before the expiration of the deal given his health and age and at that moment we are going to see what has this agreement and what has the aftermath of the political debate done? who is his successor in my system comes after him. we haven't had a transition power since 1989. this is going to be a major moment to indicate if we'll see a fundamental shift in the foreign policy. whether the fundamental shift happens or not the agreement still happens and this is a potential benefit that we have to watch over the next few years. the second challenge is israel. what happens there. obviously israelis are close partners of ours and i figures at the pentagon working for one of our primary interests with israel about the nuclear program, especially at a time when much more considering

taking things into their own hands. but i found from those exchanges with a couple of things. the israelis surrounded by a lot of unfriendly neighbors in a very tough part of the world. the approach that they take as they ascend the absolute worst-case scenarios, sort of like american foreign policymakers to contingency planning number space in areas and policy based on most likely scenarios for israelis to planning based on worst-case scenarios and so this is where you get the difference in perception that has led to the break we got here with israel. it is unfortunate we had this break apart of it is personal between president obama and prime minister benjamin netanyahu and part of it is the problem with had historically with risk perception.

i think going forward, one thing i will say, one of the unfortunate side effects has been i always found engaging with the israelis was incredibly useful because they would come in with a group of smart people who spend all their time working on this and they would give you the worst-case scenarios. they would read cemented some ways. really effectively. does it say i don't that is credible. but sometimes you can say that is something we haven't thought about it helps improve american policy. it is unfortunate we've had to split and divided limited that over the next few months. what happens next the prime minister has made every clear people oppose the agreement and try to undermine congress. that is a big mistake because at the end of the day i don't think it is likely he will succeed. what he is doing is taking a bipartisan issue and turning them into support for israel

inside the u.s. congress which is very damaging for israel's long-term interest. the political establishment is against the agreement because prime minister benjamin netanyahu has set conditions were as possible to speak for the agreement. i don't like your approach to how you deal with the americans but i hate this deal. security establishment is different. they are much more subtle about it. because they also take a lower risk perception that they are ultimately uncomfortable but at the end of the day they don't see the existential threat the prime minister does. what we see they are is the way the prime minister has decided to handle himself with the public confrontation going directly into the american media, directly to congress and trying to circumvent the executive ranch and that is something that causes anxiety for israelis because iran right

in their views in existential threat, but fraying at the u.s.-israel relationship is a more existential threat in more important to long-term security for many of them. the big question is what happens after 60 days and the congressional vote. do the israelis finally say which is encouraged by many to do is they'll take my disagreement and go back to start quietly engage with the administration and see if the united states could find ways to fill the security gap would now feel to the american reassurances that typically done or write off the president to spend the next year and have publicly confronting him. i would really hope he chooses the former and not the latter and there's a lot of people that would hope to see that too. the president has reached out.

president obama reached out to prime minister benjamin netanyahu. back to the back channels we often consults we often consulted ms. ) as opposed to the public and he was rejected at the time. he tried to do that earlier this week in this project did in september. we will have to wait and see about that. there is a third element here which is saudi arabia and the gulf state. they view things differently. they have some overlap to some differences, too. israel is focused on the nuclear program and cares about iran's regional behavior. saudi arabia really is focused on the regional question. they care about iran's support for terrorism view it happens in the region as iran picking up influence in syria and iraq and yemen and elsewhere. people speculate saudi arabia will respond to this is starting to build out its own nuclear

infrastructure. i don't believe that is the problem. that is very unlikely, expensive, takes time. this cost in terms of international reactions and relationships with the united states. the real concern is the united states is pivoting to iran and rearranging the alliance dynamics in the middle east which i don't think the obama administration is intending to do and not what i would recommend to them. feeling that concerned, the saudi start to lash out and destabilizing ways and take steps against our interest and against their interest in the region and the best example might be what they have done in yemen recently with the intervention without a clear strategic plan about what happens after you start arming and pretty much putting a blockade on gannon with no endgame in sight.

so that is the more fundamental questions for the saudi's and one the united states will have to wrestle with both this president and the next. the reality is any president who is the one who cuts a deal which we needed to do was take a big hit in israel as president obama has done. how must the next president has to come and enter the big partners. what do we do to address the challenges. three or four things we need to do. first take advantage of the fact we have the channel of communications that the iranians for the first time in 35 years. that is meaningful on the part. they have e-mail addresses and phone numbers can to you how many times we wanted to let the pentagon find ways to communicate to the iranians whether it was about a conflict here or not get off here or not

get off your to do something you'll regret if you go in that direction. having those channels is very important. talking is always better than not talking and seeing if there are ways to work together on the interest in afghanistan maritime security and avoiding potential at oration in the gold or two interesting areas for early pursuit. there's other things like that. the sanctions are coming off and it makes sense to push back more forcefully on the destabilizing activities in the region through joint efforts showing up in saudi arabia, for example with the high-level delegation by ash carter saying we are here to talk not about the nuclear program and not about how we deal with isis. we are here to have a series of strategic conversation. the talk about steps they can

take together through joint covert actions, aggressive interdiction, potentially more serious sufferers to train the sunni opposition is. and in iraq partners we can work with with both those countries. things that will signal to our partners that we mean it when we say we will push back on the behavior we don't find acceptable and also important signals to the iranians that the nuclear deal doesn't give you free range to pursue these activities. we are going to push back. one thing i tell you is when the united states pushes back, i ran back south. they have no interest in a direct fight and sometimes you need to flex your muscles to show deterrence. that is another key thing we have to be doing in the third element obviously needs to be a reassurance of other forms beyond those two which were partners i don't think we need to be selling the saudi's have

30 size. they already outspend iranians dramatically. it's about training them to counter some low wind asymmetric warfare. security assurance is in things like that we can do with partners also with the israelis or this is in the fundamental good that they will push back as we engage and we can do both. i would just close by saying it is a very complicated act to pull something off. it sends mixed messages. this has worked on iran's nuclear program. we just spent the last five 10 years with pressure and engagement to get to the table. one on its own would have worked. take the basic philosophy and problems we face as iran and the middle east and the partners and you can get there with this

combination of tools. i will stop there. >> thank you very much. the beginning of the agreement, the process is complex. it is consequential and we've given you quite a bit to contemplate. it is not your turn to ask us questions we will try to answer and i will start out with some of the journalists who were here. ... the conclusion is not coming for a number of years but a road map was presented to lead to an

assessment by december 15th and he articulated a number of steps to be taken. as you understand the agreement, what sanctions relief can be provided prior to this december 15th assessment of where iran stands on possible military dimension dimensions and what sanctions relief can only be provided after this assessment is completed if is a favorable resolution. >> that is a great question. it is complicated because we have two processes working together here. i would say very simply i don't see any sanctions relief happening before pmd has been laid to rest. that is in part because the obligation on iran is somewhat different than the obligation

the iae has taken on itself. the timing the iae is to get iran's cooperation by the 15th of the october. based on the structure of the implement implementation phase of the deal there is zero chance sanctions can happen before that cooperation is given. it is written into the document as an obligation for the iranians to have done this by adoption day. if they don't provide the cooperation, the united states would be in a position to say we have to fill in the terms of the deal and they could walk way together and you could go to dispute resolution process and so on and so forth. because of when iran has to take its steps, i don't think there is any chance of additional relief being given.

there is potentially a theoretical world in which adoption takes place and the iranians speed through implementation and there is no issue of report yet. i think it is highly unlikely almost as impossible because of how long it would take them to do but that is something that theoretically could happen. this goes to the question of what will you get out of the report from the director general. there are only two conclusions. iran had a weapon program or iran didn't have a weapon program. we think we know the answer to the first and we think it is the first. there is nothing that is going to change the timing of relief and the timing of what goes forward because we know the acts of it. i don't see in reading the

documents theas there is an explicit tie to this. i think the way the sequence works and the requirements on each part means there is not relief until iran did their part and the report itself is icing on the cake. >> let me ask you to clarify this. when we say iran does their part are wespect to the iae investigation. that means what? as i understand it and i am reading it that means the iranians need to provide the cooperation, the information, the access, that the iaea believes it is necessary to close out their investigation. not necessarily the time it would take for the agency, which can take a long time to draw conclusions from that information. is that correct? am i wrong? >> according to the road map,

iran has to provide the international atomic agency the information with access to answer all of the concerns that the agency laid out in the an ex to its november 2011 report. it needs to provide that information by august 15th and the iaea will evaluate that and by september 15th if they want to ask iran follow-up questions that information can be -- then iran can have time to follow-up with that information and ideally this process is all completed by october 15th. then by december 15th the iaea has said it will issue its assessment about the full system of iran's past work. that is according to the separate road map that was agreed upon and announced the

same day as the deal which was tuesday. >> thank for the clarification. other journalist who have questions? yes, ma'am? thank you. >> this is mostly for richard. is there any concern about kind of a contradiction message being sent if congress imposes new sanctions immediately after the deal? there were efforts to expand the 1996 iran sanctions act for ten years and i thought part of that was addressed in the nuclear agreement. what kind of message would it send to extend sanctions? >> i would definitely say there is always a risk of mixed messages. there is a risk that acting to some degree precipitous is a

real problem. the iranians are not agreeing anywhere in this they will not engage in things that look like to us terrorism or violations of human rights. they are not changing their fundamental behaviors either. what i think has to happen is navigating the tension between the iranians doing bad acts in the region but not pursuing nuclear-related bad acts that give us cause to walk away from the deal addressing iranian bad acts through the use of sanctions, but not to such a degree they say forget it we are getting our nuclear weapons back in affect because we think the deal is coming unhinged. i think the text tries to deal with this a couple different ways. the parties agree not to do things with variances and agree not to backdoor things through

regulations that were lifted as part of the deal. i think there is a tension here. i think it would be better to let the deal implement itself. we were able to do so with the soviet union and i think we can do that here but we have to be careful about what we do. >> this question is mostly for you. kelsey, like you said this isn't the perfect deal, but i am wondering are their significant loopholes in the monitoring

regime in your opinion, maybe with regard to secret facilities and past nuclear efforts or no significant loopholes? >> i don't see any significant loopholes in terms of the monetary monetary verification and that is in part because of what is granted to atomic agency under the protocol. with this accelerated time line of the pmd investigation the agency can still use the information gathered to inform its future decisions about what it monitors what it looks for, and where it goes. when you consider the entirety of iran's nuclear program with the expanded declaration under the additional protocol, the

iaea will have much more regular access to iran's nuclear program and far expanded to what it has access to now. that includes the minds and mills and the centrifuge production site and the heavy water production plants. all areas that the iaea has had very little access to in the past. there is an element put in place called the modified code 3.1 to the safeguard agreement and that insures early notification of design changes to facilities or if iran decides to build any new nuclear facilities. so when you consider early notification and the expanded declaration and short notice access to everything and the flexibility that will allow the iaea inspectors to access sites if concerns arise within 24

days and you layer on top of that the continuous monitoring, the use of these advance technologies to check enrichment levels on a regular bases and use radio seals and you add on top of that u.s. intelligence and the intelligence of other countries including israel i think you have a system that is so layered that even if no one element is 100 is guaranteed. an alarm bell would trip because iran would need to re-create the entire process in order to covertly pursue nuclear weapons. i think this regime is as strong as it needs to have elicit activity and if there are they will be detected quickly. and then the international

community will have to -- the time to respond. >> that is a good explanation. it is a reminder of the fundamentals of monitoring and verification people lose certainty of. there is no such thing as hundred percent compliance and we need to increase our confidence in the high 90s that we can detect a militarily significant non-compliant activity. that means the cheater is looking at a 90% chance of getting cost and they will have to wave the benefits and cost. and that can serves a deterant a especially when you factor in the loss. there are critics saying that can be better here and better

here. but as a whole, as chelsea said, the system needs to be considered as a whole and when you consider what monitoring verification is made to do it is not hundred percent certainty but the high 90s we can catch major violations. >> i would add before this deal was reached, before the interim deal was reached, james clapper said with high confidence the united states would be able to detect any attempt to divert material for a nuclear weapon before they were able accumulate enough material for a bomb. i think that really does speak to how much the u.s. could do in the past and when you add other elements on top of that it provides a stronger guarantee. >> we had another question up

front here. just wait for the microphone please. thank you. >> hi nancy, from the university of maryland. one of the issues that became a public controversy in the end game during the nugaucheegotiationnegotiations was what would hapb with -- happen with the sanctions on ballistics and arms. some said iran tried to open this at the end and others said it was open all along. given the framework wasn't made public but both sides in affect said different things about what was in it and agreed not to say anything that was inconsistent with what they actually agreed. what i would like to know is was there an agreement on that issue reach as part of the framework that the iranians tried to reopen or was that one of the things that was a genuine open

question at the time? >> richard, you want to take a whack at that? folks can read the new york city times article that is interesting and speaks to that issue this morning. richard? >> my sense would be you would have to talk to the negotiators themselves. but i do think there probably was a provisional agreement on this point. i think the way that it erupted as a problem in support of the iranian position it struck me as being something that was being reopened or if it wasn't already closed it was pretty closed and people were confidant it would be closed and it came back open. with that said the fundamental negotiation was that nothing is agreed until everything is

agreed. i am sure the way the iranians described it to themselves and americans, if is true they tried to reopen something, is that other parts of the deal necessitated us coming back on this point. in the end, it is certainly interesting to know the back and forth but i look at the end result. keeping a five year conventional arm embargo on place when it was only adopted by the u.n.because of the nuclear issue i think is pretty good especially with the complimentary rules we put in place. >> we have a lot of questions. let's go to the left. this gentlemen. go ahead steve. >> i am steve with the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. i have a question but i would like to make a comment first.

i think one thing we have in the discourse verses fear. i don't think we should mistake what implementation will do to transform relations to build trust through ver and not just trust. it seems like the assumption that in a year, iran could have a bomb and threaten their neighbor. they have to test it deploy it and presumably you would want more than one bomb if you become a nuclear power because after using the first one you are out

of luck. >> the reason it has been used as a measuring strick for this is one of the reasons that once a country has enough material for one bomb it is very difficult to keep track of what they are doing with it. but you are exactly right. that you know 25 programs is not an a nuclear arsenal make. there are many other steps to be taken. it has to be fashioned into a workable device the country would probably want to test it although some designs don't have to be tested and made with a delivery system. so there is more time that would be necessary and of course one nuclear weapon doesn't do too

much good as a strategic weapon but maybe a terror weapon. but what is clear is this agreement does block all of the pathways to acquiring even that much material. so iran can't do it in less than one year. we mentioned the platonium route. and it will be blocked with the chinese assistant so that can not produce sufficient amounts. this is very strong in terms ouchof preventing iran from a massing that much material. >> i will try to get to a few of you here. let's try the back a little bit, if you could, virginia the gentlemen on your side near the middle row. thank you.

yes? >> my question is one of several red lines is we have the sanctions as well as the sanctions against the central bank. of course because this is the european initiative but in your view what would happen to the en entities in the bank but mostly the central bank, the mother of all local banks in iran how would that work out?

my second question is that what do you make of the comments the president made yesterday about areas he mentioned what do you make of those comments? >> the terms of the deal basically remove the sanctions that are the most pressing on the central bank of iran and permit iran access to the swiss system with respect to institutions that were previously designated. this happens when the iaea

verifies this. >> i would argue syria is probably not where we want to start with cooperation. it is probably the area of most tension. if you are trying to overcome 35 years of not talking to each other this is an area where our interest are opposed unless there is a recalculation on iran's part and wants to move to a situation where assad accepts the transition. at the same time if we said let's talk about syria, it would reinforce the worst case assumptions about the plan to fill out the arab interest and cut out a deal with iran. i would argue it makes sense to start with issues that are less raw and see if we will push back on american invesment and then come to the table.

it is very unlikely for this point in syria, and three a nugoings -- negotiated political solution. i think the expectations on the ground, and their calculus needs to change and our partners calculus needs to change and we need to do things to set the table for that through a policy of pushing back against iran while finding ways to reassure partners. >> i see jessica matthews a senior fellow here why don't you go ahead. >> i wonder from all four of your points' of view where is the soft spots in this? by which i mean the opportunities for one side other the other to fail to clearly meet their obligations that will lead to the deal?

you fell short first, or no you did. where are we likely to get in trouble in that respect? >> that is a good question. i haven't thought about it deeply since i woke up at four in the morning to look at the agreement. why don't we ask each of you to give your take on that. >> i think because of the regional issues and terrorism issues we have to continue with active sanctions and we need a policy that eventually chips away at the benefits provided with relief. when you combine that with iranian fiscal mismanagement and the inability to do with their economy what they could do because of corruption or oil prices are low that the iranian government says we are not

getting what we are supposed to get. this might be honest because of the interaction of other sanctions or it may be a front to cover what is bad economic policy on the iranian part. and that could make it iranians. who knows who the next president of iran is going to be and say we will pull out of the deal. it is the deal causing the problem. >> is it a major problem? >> from a political stance,tled have been better to have it before. the mood in tehran is he's going to get a boost anywhere. i think it would have been worse for him if the relief was six

months in place and they had not seen real money coming in. so the timing might be okay for him. >> can i just add one point? i agree that is the greatest risk of the deal but i think there is an american policy solution to it. we have multiply tools to after terrorism, some deployed by terrorism, some dod some treasury. the treasury approach let's sanction something, because that is the lowest risk approach. it involves the least risk of military escuollation and it might be defaulting to iranian terrorism might be the riskiest approach because it underlines the broader interest we have in the nuclear deal. maybe those tools need to be

used more aggressively in the steps we take because there is risk associated with that as well. >> i would agree with what richard and elan said and add another concern about any party intentionally exploiting the review process and the ability then to go to the un security council with the intention of not resolving the dispute but actually trying to kill the deal. if any of the states doesn't think a concern has been resolved in the transmission or through the arbstration panel even then they go go directly to the -- arbitration -- and for the permanent five members

vetoing the resolution and putting the sanctions back in place. that could be used to prevent the agreement from moving forward and that option remains open past this administration and when you hear some of the candidates talking about wanting to unravel the deal there is certainly an opening there that gives me some concern. >> one other quick thought: this is not so much a big threat to the implementation of the agreement but it is something i think everyone needs to pay attention to including congress and other governments involved which is the iaea will need additional sources to do the at added work. they have a rotating team of 15 people and do a good job but they will need more people and need more resources and there is a budget growth policy affecting

all agencies and it will require additional contributions from the united states to give the agencies the resources they need. we will probably be hearing from the director general in the coming weeks and now he knows what the terms are and harry reid a chance to look at what they need to do -- he had -- we will hear from him about the resources he needs on an annual and ongoing bases. it can be done but it will require government stepping up and providing those resources. >> one small point and one other key vulnerability in the agreement is what happens with our presidential transition. and i don't think even if it is republican or someone that opposes the agreement, if is implemented for the next year and a half i think the next president will implement it too. the question is will they be

holding their noise? or have a special envoy with access to the united states when there is a problem or a deputy assistant deep inside the state department no one is really listening to? in that case the agreement falls apart by neglect and we have lots of cases with that. an example would be north korea and another example would be the priority of the iraq administration. obama executed the bush draw down plan but the level of senior engagement no one watched the issue. this matter is a lot. another example is the clinton-bush handover on al-qaeda. >> i need to point out one other thing, too. we talked about risks from the p5-plus 1 side and the iranians

have cheated on their treaty obligations for 35 years. it is not outside of their capacity to cheat intentionally, have a guy do something they are not supposed to do and have it become a bigger problem, there are a variety of things on the iran side that could make this deal fall a part. it is important to be noted we were thinking about our own perspective but we have to make sure iranians do their part. >> on this week's news makers tom perez talks about employment issues including overtime wages family leave and joblessness and the impact on the economy. news makers is every sunday on our companion network c-span. this weekend, politics, book and american history. a road to the white house

coverage features nearly all of the presidential candidates and starts at 8 eastern live from cedar rapids iowa for the democratic party hall of fame dinner. starting at 11 a.m. eastern on saturday we are live from iowa and interviews on sunday with two presidential candidates. first south carolina senator lindsay grahm and then the ohio governor. saturday morning we are live from the harlem book fair with talks on economics, african-american identity, race and politics with a story of mel urban painter and more. and ann coulter talks on sunday about immigration. and saturday afternoon we are live with the hard impose on

first ladies. a little after 9:00 jake of the national archives of kansas city shows how the u.s. government used used propaganda during world war ii to persuade people to join the war with war bonds and other secrets. >> we have more road to the white house coverage coming in august. c-span2 is partner with the new hampshire leader for the newspapers august 3rd voters first forum. all current or likely republican candidates have been invited. watch it live on c-span listen live on c-span radio and watch we airs on cspan.org.

homeland security secretary jeh johnson testified on immigration enforce enforcement looking into sanct sanctuary cities after the case of a woman being killed in san francisco by an illegal immigrant. >> good morning, the committee will come to order and without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee. we welcome you to to the hearing on oversight of the homeland security. i will begin by recognizing myself and then mr. conyers whoen he arrives. many members on the democratic

side are meeting with former secretary clinton and when they arrive we will recognize mr. conyers were his opening statement. we will proceed because we appreciate the secretary's time as well. good morning to everyone and i want to extend our welcome to secretary johnson for testifying before us for the second time. when secretary johnson testified last year i stated he was not responsible for the dangerous and irresponsible decisions made by dhs before being sworn in. i stated we could only hope he would bring back a level of adult responsibility to the enforcement of our immigration laws. unfortunately, the declining of immigration enforcement has eccelerated. dhs has taken unprecedented

steps to shutdown immigration enforcement laws for people not considered high enough priorities. unfortunately, new priorities issued by secretary johnson have turned the flight from enforcement into a head long rush. dhs deemed fugitive aliens to be a priority for removal, under secretary johnson guidelines they are no longer a priority if issued a warning before 2014. this means they are disregarding removal orders that have been issued and wasting the millions spent to obtain orders. gang members are said to be a top priority but they are convicted under state and not federal law. secretary johnson considers as

second priorities for removal of aliens with significant mist means like burglarly, drug trafficking, or drunk driving and even this priority falls away if the alien shows factors warranting release. despite the pledge to prioritize removal of criminal aliens the number of arrest has fallen by a third and the department continues to release thousands of such aliens on to our street. custom enforcement and u.s. immigration has admitted to releasing 35, 558 aliens with criminal records. we received information regarding the recidivism rate.

1,423 have been convicted of new crimes like vehicler homicide domestic violence sexual assault, dui, burglar, and assault among many others. because of the failure of this and previous administrations to detain criminal aliens the are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens living in your neighborhoods and almost 170,000 convicted criminal aliens who have been ordered removed but are living free. under the obama administration, the total number of such convicted criminal aliens when are not being detained jumped 28% since 2012 as shown by the chart. the tragic impact of this policy on the safety of americans was made all too apparent in recent weeks. a convicted criminal alien, who

had been deported many times, killed an innocent woman on a poplar pier in san francisco. ice issued a detainer for the alien, which san francisco, one of the sanctuary cities ignored. dhs advertising that jurisdictions can ignore the detainers. the ice director testified in march and expressed her support for mand tory detainers and then the very next day she retracted that statement made under oath and called mandatory detainers highly counter productive. there are more than 200 jurisdictions, including san francisco, that refuse to honor ice detainers. this releases criminal aliens on to the street with all too tragic results. secretary johnson's solutions, the priority enforcement program is a failure. polightly asking for cooperation

from sanctuary cities is a fools error. the answer to the problem is for dhs to mandate compliance with detainers and this administration to defend the nature of detainers in federal court. the administration has taken either of these crucial steps to keep our communities safe. prior to secretary johnson's appoint appoint appointment, dhs took the leap of granting amnesty to a grass of hundreds of thousands of unlawful aliens. last november secretary johnson announced that dhs would grant deferred action to over four million more unlawful aliens. by granting them deferred action he would bestow benefits like legal presence access to the social security trust fund and the earned income tax credit. it is within the constitutional authority of congress not the

administration, to grant such benefits to grasses of unlawful aliens. 26 states believe that secretary johnson's plan of defered action would cause them harm. they challenge the plan in federal court. the judge agreed with the state and granted a temporary injunction. the court stated that the administration is not just rewriting the laws. it is creating them from scratch. and an appeals court rejected the administration's request of the stay of that injunction. the unconstitutional affirming grant is a welcome developed for the health of the constitution but the court was clear it was not interfering with secretary johnson's non-enforcement of immigration laws. had -- the american people have lost confidence in this administration's willingness to

enforce immigration laws. this is the biggest impediment of congress; fixing the broken immigration system. it is my pleasure to recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. members of the committee and our distinguished witness, second jeh johnson, when you last testified before this committee i said that given his distinguished record of public service i could think of no person better equipped to lead the department of homeland security and carry out the president's directive of carry out the immigration policy in the most humane way. i am pleased to say i stand by

my initial assessment which is not to say there is not a great amount of work still to do. in your written testimony, you speak in great detail about your efforts to counter the global terrorist threat which has become decentralized, more diffused and more complex. i agree sis and al-qaeda have moved to a new phase of the conflict recruiting at-risk individuals hoping to inspire attacks in the west. i wonder if the department has taken note of a recent study by new america which demonstrates that since september 11th 2011 nearly twice as many people have

been killed by white supremcist anti-government and other extremist than by radical muslims. another study released by the police executive research forum shows state and local law enforcement agencies feel more threatened by right wing and anti-government terrorism as they are about isis-inspired attacks. i hope you will provide us with some assurance that our priorities are in order and that the department focuses on homegrown extremism which the same forcefulness that is shown from threats abroad. the immigration action you initiated last november through a series of memorandum should make our immigration system

smarter, more efficient and ultimately more humane. carry out these reforms is not easy. your job has been made arded by the refusal of conservative leap in the house to allow a vote and it is made harded by the fight you had attempted to implement common sense and entirely lawful

immigration reforms. at the end of the day, it only makes sense that the people who commit serious crimes and pose a danger to the public should be our highest priorities. those with strong ties to the countries and spouses of citizens and permanent residents and the parents of citizens and dreamers and those who have worked prodetectively in the united states for many years should not be. who could disagree with that? i thank you for your tenacity. we may disagree about the imp implement implement implementation of the enforcement reforms and we will monitoring that but i believe we are headed in the riot direction.

you recently acknowledged that substantial changes must be made to the current policy of detaining thousands of these families. some for many months and some longer than a year. we will monitor these changes because we know from experts that family detention is causing real lasting damage to these children. we look forward to continuing to work with you to insure that all aspects of the department of homeland security operate in a way that reflects our american values and continue to honor the contribution of immigrants to our great nation. one final note the chairman spoke about the tragic death of

kate steinle, the innocent woman walking with her father on the san francisco pier our hearts go out to her family and as we think about the proper way to respond, we do not adapt policies or diminish public safety and undermine our commitment to the constitution and civil liberties. so i ask mr. chair, unanimous consent to enter yesterday's new york time editoral entitled "lost in the immigration frenzy" thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> without objection it will be made part of the record. without objection all other

members opening statements will pea bee made part of the welcome and we well our distinguish wins and if you rise i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you very much. let the record reflect the witness responded in the affirm affirmative. jay charles johnson was sworn in on december 23 rd as the fourth secretary secretary. he was part of a senior management team and led more than 10,000 military and civilian lawyers across the department. he was general council of department of the air force until 2001 and served as

assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york from 1989-1991. in private practice, he was a partner in the new york city based law firm and he graduated from moore house college and received a law degree from columbia law school. your entire written will be entered in the record and we ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. we welcome you again. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to see you again. chairman, last time i was here you noted that 38 years ago, i was an intern for congressman

hamilton fish. i recall after talking to some of the congressional interns who were here, 38 years ago very vividly i was sent to a hearing on the subcommittee on the senate side. 38 years ago this month. i remember like it was yesterday. the witness was talking about the getting rid of the electoral testimony and in the middle of the testimony he had a massive heart attack and dropped dead. i hope not to make such news today. >> we hope and pray not either. >> in all seriousness you know the department has many missions, 225,000 people and we are focused on a number of things. my top priority for 2015 has been management reform and

insuring the department operates most efficient for the american people. i am pleased we have filled almost all of the vacancy that existed most recently with the conformation of the new tsa ad adminad administrator. we are focused on aviation security counterterrorism cyber security and i refer member do is an op-ed i submitted on federal cyber security and how i think we need to improve our mission and the things we are doing in dhs to improve the federal dot gov net wo

work. on immigration, it is a fiction to say we are not enforcing the law. apprehension is down. they are down considerable from where they were a year ago. there are still apprehensions daily on the southern border in particular. i am pleased the spike we saw on the southern border hasn't returned and apprehensions are down considerable. if the current pace continues, apprehension will be at the lowest since some time in the 1970's. in terms of enforcement and removal, without a doubt, the new policy that i announced and am directing prioritizes threats to border security and safety. we are moving increasingly in the direction of deporting criminals without a doubt.

absolutely. i stand by that because i believe it is good for public safety. i am pleased that of those in immigration detention now, 96% are in my top two priorities for removal. 76% are in top priority for removal. that is those apprehended at the border are convicted felons. that is the direction we are moving in with the resources we have. i believe we need to continue to focus our resources on criminals and threats to public safety and on border security. part of that is fixing our relationship with local law enforcement. something like 300 jurisdictions enacted or imposed limitations on their law enforcement's ability to cooperate with our

ability to work with our immigration personal. that needed to be fixed because it was inhibiting our ability to get at the criminals. what the president and i did was to replace the secure communities program with the new priority enforcement program which i believe resolves the political controversy and we are actively reaching out to local law enforcement and jurisdictions. of the 49 biggest, i am pleased to report that some 33 -- 39 have been asked and most have agreed. los angeles agride -- agreed to

work with us. and chairman, congressman, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary and i will recognize myself. you claim to prioritize immigration enforcement against criminal aliens. the number of available and protections as you utilize continues to fall. 34,000, 24 to 26,000 are being utilized.

can you explain to me the continued increase in the number of convicted criminal aliens in removal proceedings you have already been removed were not being detained by dhs? the number of convicted aliens allowed has gone up 28% in less than three years, and i direct your attention to the chart. from $270,000.350000 these people are out on the streets command many of them are committing new crimes. i would very much like you to explain its how this priority system is working when you are not fully utilizing and not removing 350,000 people who have been ordered removed and not using the capabilities that the congress is paying for. >> the last time i looked the number of those detained in immigration detention has been going up. last am i checked it was around 31,000.

that is a day-to-day report i get. last time i checked it it was up to around 31,000. this less than the full capacity that congress is given us of some 34,000 to be sure, but it is moving in the direction. >> given they're is 350,000 on the street should we be providing you with additional capacity? when are you going to get to the 34,000? >> like ii said, it is trending in that direction. we have established greater capability to detain those who bring her children with them. and i have issued policies to reform those practices because of the special considerations that going to dealing with children.

we have increased capacity. it is going up. one of the reasons i think it is lower than 34,000 is the apprehension rates are lower and because it's the problem we had with secure communities which was in having our ability to conduct interior enforcement. >> let me ask you. why do doyou. why do you think cooperation should be voluntary? >> if i could finish my sentence. some 12,000 attended last year were not active by state and local jurisdictions. i do not believe that we should mandate conduct of state and local law enforcement through federal legislation. i believe that the most effective way to work with jurisdictions, particularly the larger ones is they're a cooperative effort command i believe state and local law enforcement believes that as well from a cooperative

effort with a program that removes the legal and political controversy. >> let me ask you about that is it true that some of the worst offending jurisdictions have declined to even participate in your knew priority enforcement program? >> i would disagree with that, sir. it's my understanding that five priority a jurisdictions has set out right now. as i indicated a moment ago 33 have indicated a willingness to participate in one way or another. of the 49 top 11 are still considering it and we have contacted literally hundreds. the 40 niner mentioned other 49 top priorities. the overwhelming number of indicated a willingness to work with us. >> of. >> of the 276 so-called sanctuary cities where they have publicly taken a position to not cooperate with ice last year some 8,000 criminal aliens were released by those communities onto the streets

of there communities of this country. and in the short time since those 8000 were8,000 were released's that have already committed nearly 1900 knew crimes. why wouldn't it be a priority to do everything possible to mandate influence, whatever the case may be for them to honor ice detainers rather than to see this occur. i have to say the department is not operating with clean hands when they go to these communities and say don't release 8,000 because the department released 30,000 last year under there own procedures. again, that helps to contribute to this growing list of nearly 350,000 individuals who are either under a deportation order or have deportation proceedings

pending. >> if you are asking me should we reduce or eliminate the criminals who are undocumented you are released by sanctuary cities. >> and by the department. >> i agree that we should work to reduce that number. absolutely. >> but the trend is going around way. >> i disagree. we should mandate how state and local law enforcement relates. i don't think that is going to solve the controversy in the courts, and in terms of the 30,000 i have issued -- >> how about incentivizing them. >> i have issued new guidelines to deal with releases of those who have

been convicted of something to tighten up. higher level approval authority and that we should no longer really somebody for budgetary or reasons of lack of space. we will find the space. if there is someone we think should be detained and we can detain them, that detainment, that has been my directive. >> thank you. the dillman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. we are pleased to have you here. i was just looking over your article in the newspapers today about cyber security. you say often sophisticated actors penetrate because they know they can count on a single user letting his guard down that wedown that we have increased and we will continue to increase with congress is help to do much more. do you have an additional comment?

>> yes, congressman. iyes congressman. i have been struck by the fact that very often the most sophisticated far-reaching tax whether in the private sector or in the government by the most sophisticated actors often starts with a simple active spearfishing. someone open an e-mail efficient have. and so a large part of our effort has to be education of our workforce about not opening suspicious emails that they don't recognize. >> thank you. on immigration enforcement priorities for the past six and a six and a half years this administration has said many new immigration enforcement records. over the 1stover the 1st six years the number of people remove is so much greater than it had been hundred pastor ministrations

that the president's has famously described as the poor and chief. the "washington post" recently tweeted that the departmentdepartment is on pace to remove fewer people in the current fiscal year than in the past fiscal years. can you explain why the numbers went down this past year? >> well, the -- as i mentioned, congressman from our like to see us move in the direction of focusing on threats to public safety which is what we are doing. the overall number of deportations has been going down. anan increasing percentage of those we detain and ultimately remove are convicted criminals, recent were arrivals and threats to public safety. that is the direction i believe we need to go in. >> good. let me ask you about the

decision to replace secure communities with priority enforcement programs. i understand the secure communities, the fingerprints of every person arrested for aa crime and local law enforcement are checked that only by the fbi but also against the department of homeland security immigration records.records. interoperability still be present under the priority enforcement program? >> yes. >> excellent. now, the montgomery county chief of police recently said his office notifies ice when serious criminals are set to be released and ice is always able to get

they're on the day of release to assume custody. would you say ice will generally take appropriate action when notified about the release of the serious criminal? >> we will generally take appropriate action to avoid the release of a serious criminal. absolutely. >> very good. and finally can you comment on the shooting in pennsylvania? in general how do you respond when people say that our southwest border is not secure. how secure is our southwest border compared to other times in history? >> over the last 15 years innton bush, and obama administrations we -- and i include in the statement the congress as well so i have

made historic investments and border security's. for example 15 years ago they're was only 70 miles of fence. now there 700. we're up to 18000 and to 18,000 and change in terms of border patrol personnel on the sub was poor. i believe that is reflected in the numbers. in the year 2,000 apprehension on the southern border were 1.6 million. in recent years they are down around 400,000.400,000. this year i suspect he we will be somewhere in the 300,000, even lower. that is due to the investments we have made of border security with this congress. i want to continue that progress through investment technology surveillanc so forth. in terms of the san francisco case kate style command i hope i pastor last name correctly.

>> just finally. i understand mr. lopez sanchez has returned to the country multiple times after being deported. in most instances apprehended right away. give us a little illumination on that subject >> my understanding is that he was deported five times and returned five times and he was prosecuted for unlawful reentry three times and served fairly significant jail sentences. he was in the gop custody serving hishis last sentence. we put a tear on them. and he was transferred to the san francisco sheriff. we put another detainer on them. he was released.

my hope is that jurisdictions like san francisco, san francisco county will cooperate with our knew program. i was pleased that senator feinstein wrote the mayor and asked that san francisco participate. as the sheriff himself as acknowledged, i personally met with the sheriff in april to ask for his participation in the program along with other san francisco area sheriff's in the month of april. and as i said, making the rounds with a lot of jurisdictions.jurisdictions. my deputy secretary and i and other leaders have been active for the purpose of promoting public safety to get jurisdictions to cooperate with us on this. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. the chernow recognizes the german from south carolina. >> i also want to thank the

dillman from taxes. i have been on this committee from us five years and have listened as witnesses primarily, colleagues on the other side of the aisle and ever. almost can't i frequency certain phrases like citizenship for 11 billion aspiring americans as of 11 billion of any category cannot pass background checks. phrases like functional control the border. phrases as benign sounding as sanctuary cities. and i have listened carefully as i have heard argument after argument after argument made against empowering state and local law enforcement to actually enforce immigration laws. have you had a chance to look at the criminal history of mr. lopez sanchez? >> i believe i had. he has committed local state, andlocal, state, and federal crimes. he was in his by a definition that her

criminal. he violated at least three separate statutes when he simply picked up the gun before he shot and killed an innocent woman walking with her father. so to me he is exhibit a that we must not have functional control over the border or he would not every in at 70 times. and heand he is, i'm assuming not able to pass anyone's background check 's. i hope some all of this from history couldcannot even pass our friend in the senate's comprehensive immigration reform background check i want to read a quote to you. people living in this country undocumented to come forward and get on the books whether it is deferred action for her path to citizenship. i want people to come

forward. >> i don't know. >> you did say that. you did tell me lopez sanchez's background lead you to believe that he would come forward. >> clearly he is not the type of person that whatever qualify for any sort of deferred action. >> i no that. my.is, when you have a concern. >> sir, may be allowed to speak. >> your welcome to answer the question i was asked. >> give me a chance. he is not any kind of person who would qualify for any type of deferred action in my book or earned path to citizenship. he is a dangerous criminal multiple times over. we talk about encouraging people to come forward what

we are talking about is people who we hope or poor crime, who we will participate. obviouslyobviously someone like this is not coming forward. >> no, he is not. i we will let you answer the question, but not going let you run out the clock. he is not coming forward and does not need to get on the books. betterbetter than being on the books he was in federal prison. by was somebody in federal prison with the federal detainer on him released to a sanctuary city? >> you have to ask the bureau of prisons. >> have you? >> had a detainer on him when he was in blp custody and when he was in the custody of san francisco. >> i no you did. my question to you is -- >> a lot of questions being

asked right now. in my book he is exhibit a for why jurisdictions need to work with our priority enforcement program. secure communities was not working. over 12,000 the tenors a minor or not acted upon. >> why don't you make it mandatory. >> working cities like san francisco are not complying why don't you make the mandatory? >> i think that would be a huge setback in our ability to work with state and local law enforcement. >> i do not agree and not tell you why. what i find ironic is you are not willing to mandate federal detainers but you are willing to mandate the state and local law enforcement cannot assist you in enforcing immigration laws. help me understandhelp me understand that. you can empower a city like san francisco to ignore federal law but you won't empower state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law. help me reconcile that.

>> can i speak. >> yes, sir. you can have the rest of the time. >> thank you for giving me seven seconds. >> take all the time you want. >> i am sure you are aware the secure communities program was usually problematic in the courts. saying the state and local law enforcement does not have the authority under the due process laws of the constitution to hold people and tell we can come and get them.them. last time i like the federal legislation cannot rewrite due process laws. that is a problem. i do not believe that mandating through federal legislation the content of share some police chiefs is the way to go. it we will be hugely controversial and have problems with the constitution. i want to see us work cooperatively with state and local law enforcement command i believe they are poised to do so. >> my time is up. we had a supremacy clause. federal law trumps state law god knows a trumps the line san francisco. when i here the phrase

sanctuary city it may have been a sanctuary for the defendant, but it was not a sanctuary for a young woman walking with her father. at a minimum change the name of whatever benign sounding program the money out to be cut command i hope that you insist the federal detainers be honored and not be discretionary and with that i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> i want to welcome the secretary. i would like to remind mr. galley that the privacy does not trump the 4th amendment and the federal court containers on violations.

troubles and the court. there were indeed. indeed. i commend the administration for trying to follow policy that is not unconstitutional. now, secretary johnson, i have heard significant concerns that the issue. 01 b and two. the motion picture industry. they provide. i take seriously allegations allowing unqualified aliens to fill those jobs. all like your agency to take a serious look. if you commit to working with me on this issue. >> yes. >> thank you. we have been asked h 1 b visas. and we voted out of committee and increased 50,000. the provision to eliminate

an equivalent number of diversity. the assertion that we need more h 1 b visas is we have to bring engineers and others to fill positions that we can fill your yearly series of stories about the disney company and others laying off hundreds of there own american employees who were then forced to train foreigners who came here on h 1 b visas to replace. if that is true that is a serious failing of the program. and being used to displace american workers rather than to supply people. can it be fixed properly? >> through the h 1 b program

those who hold the visas are not supposed to replace americans with the jobs, as you pointed out. any such allegation is very troubling to me. i believe that such matters should be investigated. i also believe that congress can help in this regard. i think the congress can help through increased enforcement mechanisms for situations where employer does in fact replace american workers with h1bh 1 b holders. that is a recommendation has been made to meet command i support that. >> thank you. the united states has a long-standing commitment to refugee protection. we pride ourselves. i understand these need to

be balanced with legitimate border security initiatives. i'm concerned that the expert the removal of individuals, serious persecution claims. recently dhs institute in the pilot program expediting deportation of central americans beyond the process. detained by ice away from the general population not given any no your rights presentations are access to attorneys and reporter within a matter of days. these detainees are being held in facilities particularly in the detention center. transfer burden of border security to the mexican government and they are not offering of any protection of the international law. more than double families without commensurate resources for legitimate refugees.

i find practices troubling given they're are several news reports about the horrific violence in the region especially against women and girls. central americans being killed. ii would like to enter some of these for the record. >> if the gentleman will at some.designate which one. >> law enforcement involves providing protection from persecution command we have an obligation to make sure that we do not undermine that in our borders or at our friends borders. whatwhat is the administration doing to ensure central american refugees are being honored by both our government and an adequate opportunity to make the claims with proper legal assistance and by the government of mexico. >> well, a couple of things congressman. first, we have prioritized among our cios personnel for

interviews of people on the borderborder, particularly from central america who may have a reasonable fear. and the credible fear plan. the most recent guidance i issued directed that these interviews be conducted in a reasonable amounta reasonable amount of time as quickly as possible. my hope is that we can get those on average done in about 14about 14 days after apprehension. when it comes to refugees, the other thing that we have begun which i would like to see more use of his incomes reprocessing and central america advice we got last summer when we were dealing with a spike. we need to offer people a lawful say path to the united states. we set up incomes reprocessing the ability to interview kids in the free

central america countries who have parents who are lawfully here to see if they would qualify for refugee status. frankly, not enough people have taken advantage of the program. itit is in the low thousands. i would like to see more use that method versus trying to make the journey through mexico which is dangerous and crossing our borders illegally. we are urging people to make use of that program. i want to see us publicize it, put emphasis on it because it is the lawful state path to come to the united states. >> my time is expired and i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. >> thank you. i will preface my questions with a comment. we mentioned the secure communities program several times.

i no that the administration never went to court to defend the secure committee program when the issue was before the court but let me turn to my questions. first questions. first of all, what is the administration's position on sanctuary cities? does it have one? >> yes.yes. in the sense that i want to reduce if not eliminate the jurisdictions that don't want to cooperate with us. >> but has the administration actually come out and i doi do condemn them on the one hand or condone the money other? >> whatever label you put on it they're are a lot of jurisdictions. >> what is your operating definition of a sanctuary city? >> they're are so many

around.around. i no that there are something like 300 jurisdictions that have enacted executive orders, acting pursuant to state law that we will not cooperate with us because of the controversy around the secure communities program. >> in essence these communities are refusing to cooperate with the federal government and the enforcement of the federal immigration laws. >> to 1° or another. thank you. one of the things that is so annoying, aggravating, frustrating to a lot of us and a lot of people a bring this topic up is the fact that this administration seems to be anxious to aggressively pursue communities, states that are enforcing the immigration laws. arizona is an example. so when the state is enforcing our immigration laws we go after them. we pursue them.

in that case we stop them. however, we have communities all over the country refusing to enforce the immigration laws. we saw this tragic incident in california with this totally innocent 32 -year-old woman who was brutally murdered by solution i've been here and the administration really in essence is not actively opposed cities that are flaunting our immigration laws. can you understand the frustration? >> well, all i no is i have been spending a lot of time of my own meeting with mayors, governors, county executive's, sheriff's who have been opposed to cooperate with us to encourage them to eliminate those barriers. that does not include arizona. aa lot of very large jurisdictions that have passed these types of loss to encourage them to repeal and and interpret them in a way.

>> let me switch gears, as the ministration reached out? >> the family of a woman who was brutally murdered by this individual who committed seven different felonies and four different states. has thehas the administration reached out to the family? >> am sorry. >> a whole range of homicide cases of criminal cases around the country and i'm not being critical of them having done that. there are timesthey're are times when the administration should do that but there are also times for perhaps they need to do that.

>> i don't no the answer. >> strongly recommend. >> can you check in with that. >> speaking for myself i have developed a practice of reaching out to every sheriff for commissioner or chief who has had a law enforcement officer .-dot no one of duty. i write a letter personally. >> my understanding is they have not but i ask that the administration check in. how long is our border with mexico? >> 2700 miles. >> how much of the fences actually complete? >> 700 pursuant the congressional directive, something around 700700. >> what did the administration do back in 2010 which suspended expansion of the virtual portion of the fence? >> well, my understanding is that the700 miles, 700 and change was built pursuant to congressional mandate. i no that there was some litigation around and environmental issue.

ii also no a lot of the southwest border is very remote. as i'm sure you saw it includes the rio grande from other parts of the border. and so the fence we have built has been built in places where he makes the most sense. >> my time has expired expired, but let me conclude by noting that is one and of the things i think is frustrating to the american public, the fact that the losses the fences to be built. the fence needs to be completed. we need a secure border. >> i believe it is almost all completed. >> i don't think that's correct, but i'll follow up. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you for being here and for the work that you do on behalf of our country to keep us safe. it is a tough job but you have approached her duties with skill and dignity and we very much appreciate that. i want to test just briefly on the tragedy in san francisco the lady who was walking with her father. outrageous situation, she was shot and killed. whenever an innocent citizen loses they're life it should cause us to review what could be changed. mandatory sentencing, but my understanding, mr. sanchez just finished four and years it does not appear that that is necessarily the answer. one and of the questions i wanted to explore was the policy of transferring from

the bureau of prisons to a locality. itit is my understanding that it was like a bench warrant. but the underlying offense was a small number one and. i don't know. the bureau of prisons. clearly if you an outstanding warrant. somebody committed a crime two and weeks ago you no what the department of homeland security prosecution a locality. if you have a very old warrant with an offense that probably would not be prosecuted. is they're some way that we could clear those warrants if there is no intent to

prosecute? in that case we would have a situation where probably arresting officer, they're would be no witnesses. further in the state of california today possession of a small amount of marijuana i think might give rise to prosecution. what are your thoughts on that process? >> i agreei agree with the spirit of your question. i think that in a situation where the bureau of prisons has someone that they are about to release because that person is complete the sentence and there's an immigration detainer minutes one and -year-old boy on a marijuana charge there ought to be some discretion in balancing built-in so that -- >> or maybe some communication with the locality to find out whether they intend. >> look, i think we need to look at this question. it may be that they give

priority to a criminal warrant which in all cases is not necessarily the best outcome. and so i want to look at the question of whether or not we and blp can work more effectively together to make the appropriate assessment but if this person got immigration detention versus go jurisdiction with the 20 and -year-old boy. >> am glad to here that, and i would like to keep apprised of the progress the gal report, you may not had a chance to review it but it really talks about the manner in which the ga set

-- ghs is screening and caring for a company children when it comes to mexican children at the border. this is an issue have raised in the past publicly and privately the mexican children under the age of 14 and are presumed not to be competent to make a decision about whether to voluntarily return. with the jail found is that we're not really getting the kind of examination of the law and vision without the trafficking provision and vision. it does trouble me, and i no they're are several members on both sides of the aisle are concerned. you have a child who may be a victim of trafficking. they may may have been a victim of sexual abuse. yet there interrogation is conducted by a uniformed officer who may or may not speak they're language in front of other people, the children.people, the children. you would not have a police agency in the whole united states that would interview a child sexual abuse victim in that manner. i am wondering now that we

have a report whether we can revisit how we're doing these interviews and whether we might take a clue from police agencies around the united states to make sure that potential sex trafficking victims who are children are interviewed in an appropriate setting by a skilled nonuniformed person so that we can get the truth of whether they are in fact a victim or not. when you have had a chance to take a look at that report can we discuss this further? >> i am aware of the report and its conclusion. i have not had a chance to carefully study it, but it is something we will look at. >> thank you command my time is expired. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the german from virginia for five and minutes. >> mr. sec., it is always good to see you. thank you for being here.

at the opening of this hearing the ranking member for whom i have enormous respect couplets of the conservative leadership of the house for impacting and even slowing some of the policies that this administration. i assumed he was talking about the policy of releasing terrorists from guantánamo bay or perhaps releasing criminals on our streets. while i am sure the leadership would be flattered, they would be the 1st and to say we have a lot of work to do. you mentioned your job is to be done humanely. you no and we have talked about we have a huge game problem in the country growing problem. and in fact if we took gang members in the united states today is equal the 6th and largest army in the world. so my question to you is this is it humane to leave individuals who are here illegally and you have been active participants in a criminal streaking or intentionally participated in organized, not being to remain in the united states?

>> such an individual is among my top priorities for removal. >> if that is the case that is indeed the memo you mentioned. we had a little difficulty because three and months ago you director did not have a clue when she was asked command you can look at the testimony of the record, we asked her how many criminal aliens with violent gangs has ice and/or cbp processed and deported since dhs updated'supdate is policy, the policy you referenced, how many has ice or cpp released and what type of process is dhs using to determine who was a member okay. my 1st and question to you is, can you give us the day the number of criminal aliens with violent gang ties that ice and/or cbp has is processed and deported since her policy was updated

>> well, that is a noble number which we can get to you for the record. sitting here right now i don't know the number. that is a noble number. >> and here's the problem. thisthis is one and of your top priorities. the director said she didn't have a clue. today when we have a hearing to look at this we don't have that number. if you would get it back to us. but i would assumed and that then that you also don't no how many ice or cbp is released. >> again, it is a noble number. i just did not come prepared with the number. i could have anticipated a question i would have. >> i thought it was one and of your top priorities that might have been a metric you would look to see. >> it is one and of my top priorities. >> but you just don't no whether it's working or not. >> like i said, it is a noble number. i just don't have with me. >> but you don't no the noble number. >> i do no i have mandated as part of that same directive that we track who

we removed. >> can i ask you this because i don't have the five and minutes. what type of process are you using to do that tracking that you have mandated? how do you no who wasis a member of a criminal gang? do you asked them? >> in fact we have tightened up the guidance so that it is -- we can more effectively identify -- >> share with us, if you would come as a committee how your tightened it up. you ask the individuals that they are members of our commodities? >> if you are referring to applicants for deferred action the answer is yes. >> your testimony today is that you ask every member who was an applicant whether they are a member of a violent criminal gang because that would be in

conflict with the director said. that is your testimony today. >> my understanding -- >> let me make sure. you are saying it is the policy. you are sure or you don't no >> i no that being a member of a criminal streaking is certainly a disqualifier. >> i understand that, but if we don't no they are doesn't help us. can you state under oath that you no that each one and of those applicants are asked whether they're a member of our accompanying. >> i believe the answer is yes. >> you believe it is the don't no. >> well -- >> can you confirm that in get back to us for the record. >> yes. >> do you no where they are reviewing a criminal trial records? >> am side, what is the question? >> whether the applicant's trial records are review before a decision is made as to whether or not they we will be released. >> a trial record. >> yes. >> what is a trial record. >> a trial record would be when there going to court and the prosecutor for crime they would be a record. it's important because often times it does not say on

there conviction that they were a member of a violent criminal gang. unless you unless you are reviewing the records you would not have any way of knowing. my time is up. >> i no what a criminal record is. i don't know if i ever heard the term trial record. >> therecord. >> the problem is it is not always show the details. if you don't no that you don't no when they believe they were actually a member of allowing gay or not. with that i yield back. very concerning that you have a major priority and we don't even no the metrics as to whether or not it's working. >> that would be a mischaracterization of what i said. >> the time of the gentleman has expired and the chair recognizes the german from texas for five and minutes. >> thank you very much,much, mr. secretary for your testimony. to my colleague i think i said this before, but i sit on the homeland security committee since september 11 the tragedy of september 11. important to note that secretary johnson has made incredible advances in

securing this nation. i alwaysnation. i always so we are asked to criticize transportation security administration and other agencies within home and security that we have faced challenges that america has been made safer and more secure the creation of his department. in particular let me thank secretary johnson for noting the decrease in the surge of unaccompanied children. but as well when a group of us went to visit in san antonio and viewed a circumstance that was unacceptable to us children and mothers themothers, the department was responsive command we appreciate the decreasing population legally of children dealing with the unaccompanied circumstances. ii think it is important to take note that this is a huge challenge in securing this nation. and so allow me to quickly.

and if you would just say yes or no because i want to get to my real question. i just want to say, that program that you have announced, would that have been a sizable intervention for the sheriff's department and other sanctuary cities to be able to respond to a circumstance like mr. sanchez? does this give a greater latitude and remainder century city status? >> yes. >> let me justand let me just say from my colleague the sanctuary city is not -- it a state rights, individual cities making thata determination. i would also say and ask unanimous consent to put into the record and might i do this so that my colleagues no my deepest sympathies to the family and i personally apologize to the family of the tragedy that has occurred. none of us would want to counter that poor to support that are to be supportive of comprehensive immigration

reform and support that violent act, but i think that it is important to no compared the cities of minneapolis in dallas those murders, those murders 5.75 in minneapolis 15.1711.39. over the years it has gone down. i don't want to condemn sanctuary cities, but i want to condemn the idea of communication and join with the mayor who says that somebody simply picks up the phone. i'm working in order of activities here. i see that ice center detainer. my question to law enforcement of the city it would not negate the sanctuary city authority to simply picked up the phone and call nice to be able to say this individual who has a long criminal history is in our facility. mr. secretary is that --

and light of this horrible tragedy that we do not diminish, could that have been a phone conversation at that time? the sheriff department and not violate the sanctuary city rules? >> my strong intent with the knew program is that we have the type of cooperative relationship with local law enforcement such that we get notification before somebody is released. so that we can get they're in time to pick them up when they are released. >> and they could have also made the call at that time as well. i want it and towards and others, the could've made a call. let me move quickly to the issue of violent extremism and just site for you an article from the new york times that made it clear that since september 11 they're were 19 non- muslim extremist attacks versus seven islamic

militant attacks command we all no we are concerned about heisel in every state. but istate. but i'm concerned as well about homeland security looking of violent extremism are dealing with anti- government feeling or racist feelings. i have every respect for opinion his speech. expressing hatred toward me because i african-american but not evidenced by mother emanuel. can you explain what you we will be doing about capturing those who engage in violent anti- government activities and, of course, racial violence has a perspective of domestic terrorism. >> well, of course, they're is always law enforcement approach to a crime to violence. our rcb an effort across the department should be comprehensive in my view.

i have personally spent a lot of time on engagement, asengagement as you know. we attended one together in houston about a month ago. at the moment my priority has been focusing on communities that i believe are most vulnerable at least some members of the committee to appeals from terrorist groups overseas who are actively targeting individuals in these communities. i think that we need to focus on communities that themselves have the ability to" somebody who may be turning in the direction of violence. without a doubt there is the potential, very real potential of domestic acts of terrorism. i just went to oklahoma city for the 20th anniversary of the bombing in april. a program that counters domestic violent extremism

domestic -based violent extremism is in my judgment a little more complicated. the terrorist threat to the homeland from overseas that i'm concerned about is one that is making active efforts to recruit people in response to the recruitment efforts. and so as you know we have been focused on that. but i do agree with the spirit of your question that violent extremism in this country can exist in a lot of different forms. >> mr. chairman, may i add. to include these two documents in the record and is but one sentence on the record. mr. secretary i am for you

-- i employ you to consider domestic terrorism and i would like to work with the department to seriously had that. i think it we will be a vitally important step forward and let me thank you for your service. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we will allow it. those two documents we will be made aa part of the record and the chair recognizes the german from island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this hearing in your testimony. listening to the testimony about detainers -- i we will pause for aa minute. can i have a clear path. thank you. listening about eyes detainers this 1st question occurs to me. how long have we been operating when they were mandatory? do you no? >> detainers back a long way. >> ninety-six. >> when i was a federal prosecutor 25 years five years ago we had immigration detainers. >> mandatory for a long time

how long has this been a problem? your testimony you said last year 12,000 eyes detainers were ignored or not responded to by local law enforcement.enforcement. 12,000. is that indicative of a problem we have had over 20 years? >> i think that number has been growing with the number of jurisdictions that have been passing ordinances and laws and signing executive orders that limited their ability to cooperate with us i suspect the number has been growing annually. >> would it be perhaps in sync with the 2012 aclu fact sheet that was sent to local law enforcement nationwide that said that ice detainers are not mandatory because no penalty existed and they have this legal rationale time if there is no penalty than there is know a lot of

the enforced? >> i am not familiar with that. >> i would make sure you get a copy of that. february 252014. if that is about the date that the number of local jurisdictions ignoring the detainers began to accelerate. >> i do not no the answer. >> we do no that the department has cooperated to some degree with ice and they are asking me. and i'm looking at the letter that was sent to a membera member of congress, a member of this committee dated february 25 2014 from us immigration. well immigration detainers well immigration detainers are an important part of the effort to remove criminal aliens they are not mandatory as matter of law. the congress was informed february 25 that you are going to back away. i'm listening to a spokesman say that it is the sanctuary city policy, not one that has to do with ice his

decision. i raisedecision. i raised this is a. they're are a series of jurisdictions. i would ask you to sit down or have people in your department that sit down and calculate the resources necessary to enforce all of law and express that in sync with rudy giuliani's policy, foreign policy in new york. we arrest people a break the laws quickly as we can enforce the law so that there is an expectation that it is a deterrent to get to that point., to restore the respect which has been damaged. i believe we can repair it. it. but with the calculation be for the resources necessary? >> congressman, you defer to restoring respect for immigration laws. >> let's call it enforcement. >> that's what i'm trying to do.

>> and what resources do you need them to do that? you have more beds than you are using, increase the number of officers, significantly fewer arrests taking place. that doesn't convince me they're are fewer border crossings. that we will be on the take. all the take. it is never been indicative to me. >> i do ask that question. i would like to see our immigration enforcement personnel put on a pay scale with other law enforcement personnel. as you probably know, a lot of them are topped out at gs nine. one of our executive actions was to have pay reform for immigration enforcement personnel. >> am happy to take that conversation up as i believe that we ought to be as supportive of we can. they want to also do there job and ii want to make sure we have the foundation to get that done. when you are asked how long is the border, southern border.

>> how long is the southern border? >> yes. >> 2700 miles. >> i want to give you an opportunity. it is close to 20002,000 miles. but i bring this up because it is important for this committee and you and the public to consider what we're doing. we'redoing. we're spending 13 billion on our southern border to secure border. i don't no anyone else the tracks that number. that number. that comes out to be a little less than 6.6 million per mile. that might not be astonishing unless you think about 25 percent of those attempting to cross art interdicted, and many are released maybe five times. actually 27 is lies number of saint. we are building interstate highway across extensive iowa cornfields for 4 million a mile. grading, bathing shouldering, and signage and

all things necessary for's archaeological and environmental. we can take a 3rd of that budget in a matter of two years and have that whole thing fenced come a long, andalong, and fenced, patrol roads in between, to no mental enzymes. if we do that these fences don't have prosper toward discretion. they we will be effective. israelis. israelis 99 points of the percent effective. 1.8 million a mile and there's, 14,000 illegal crossings in one sectioning cut it to 40. there is an economic equation are your department could bring forward and i would be happy to sit down and go through the numbers. i think we could put a lot better application to these resources that are being used and i thank you for your testimony and yield back the balance of my time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank. >> thank you, mr. chair. i would like to recognize and say hello to mr. johnson

who is from the other great city intimacy which has the 2nd best barbecue but the greatest hbc you in the country. i want to follow up on mr. jackson these questions. we need to be concerned about threats from afar and recruitment of our people from afar. but the fact is we have more of a threat domestically to our lives that we do internationally. and article in the new york times just this past year june 16, just this past month cite the fact that since september 11 an average of nine american muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism related plot

against targets in the us. most were disrupted but the20 they were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities. in contrast, right-wing extremists average 337 attacks per year and aa decade after september 11254 fatalities over five times as many as the muslim cost utilities according to a study by a professor at united states military academy combating terrorism center. that's all has increased since the study was released i ask you about our efforts to curtail domestic right-wing extremists. i believe that in 2011 might have been a department that is funding was cut or even abolished. is they're any consideration that you have given to increasing funding and/or

renewing a department? i think that the department of commerce security 2009 the department disbanded extremism and radicalization branch of the home an environment threat analysis division. do you think it would be appropriate to have the division re-created reinstate? >> congressman, let me answer it this way. we fund over 2 billion a year in grants to state and local law enforcement to homeland security/public safety purposes of a lot of different stripes. so the 1st responder equipment that we fund is valuable whether it is a terrorist attack, a mass shooting incident, motivated by whatever purpose. so for example the boston

marathon attack which is very definitely an act of terrorism come our 1st response funded to a very large measure by my department even though there were local. ..

>> after charleston of the union of orthodox jewish congregations of america noted that we need as her but i think would agree freedom of worship, freedom from fear. our houses of worship need to be safe. the grant program provides grants to communities to buy surveillance equipment and shatterproof windows. much of that goes and has been going and at least it has been going to jewish organizations and synagogues which have been targeted over the years with threats. now do we see in the south particularly and over the years but ration recently of attacks on african-american churches. can your department look into her requesting increase in funding so they can cover african-american churches are also threatened in this day and time? >> we can, serve. i just met with officials of the

american jewish community last week who are greek ultimate of the relationship that we have with the jewish community in this regard. and as i think i mentioned to you, congressman, my great-grandfather was a baptist preacher in southwest virginia near roanoke, little a little town on the virginia/tennessee line called bristol. back in 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 attempt. so i appreciate the importance of your question. >> and i appreciate your service. thank you, sir. i yield back. >> recognizes the children from

arizona, mr. king, i mean mr. franks for five minutes. >> you insulted both of us, mr. chairman. thank you, sir. secretary johnson, a report from the national academy of sciences this is quote investment of one to $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. another report from lloyd's of london state between 20-40 million people in america are at risk of extended outages for up to one to two years of duration. i can read excerpts of 11 major government reports that all share similar findings. for hours agenda. and yet the federal government has done next to nothing to protect the electric grid. i just would remind you last year you testified it was the main responsibility of the

national programs and protection directorate for the in ppd with the department of homeland security, along with other course relevant agencies to protect the electric grid. so i would like to ask you what is being done today at dhs to protect the grid from geomagnetic disturbance or from weaponize the electric and magnetic poles? to support legislative efforts like the critical infrastructure protection act that does not compound the homeland security committee to actually focus on this threat and act upon it? >> in general and very supportive of the efforts being made. i know that the threat you mentioned is one that we study and evaluate. i'm happy to get back to you more specifically for the record in answer to a detailed steps we're taking and how we regard this particular threat. >> i appreciate that. i hope you take especially to the critical infrastructure protection act.

it's going to be entirely within your purview to respond to it. and i think is something you probably support. i will sort of change the site but have to get back to the subject, the constitution to have the procedure of chairing the constitution subcommittee. so that's part of the predicate. article i section eight calls for the constitution provides that congress shall have power to quote establish a uniform rule of naturalization and grants congress plenary power over immigration policies. that's very, very, very clear. are your administrative actions and agencies administrative action to save millions of unlawful and criminal it is any threat of enforcement of our immigration laws, a usurpation of congress' constitutional? >> inherent in enforcement of any law is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

and that's what we do in enforcement of our laws. us what the department of justice does and doesn't multiple other agencies do. >> in all due deference to you prosecutorial discretion is one thing. the suspension of the law is another. i will probably leave it right there, mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. recognize mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a hearing where republicans are arguing that the administration is not enforcing the immigration laws and that this is leading to increased crime. exhibit a the murder of ms. stein late in san francisco. and that event happened within the last few weeks and i am

really impressed with the speed by which this committee has sprung into action to bring this issue before a hearing. you know i mean and then going to take advantage of it for political purposes is basically what's happening. however, something like the flying a confederate battle flags and national park spaces something that is salient, jermaine and current. they want to put that off to the committee for a study or for a hearing that will never be held. so it's politics what we are going up here secretary johnson. i appreciate your service, by the way. we have is a situation where

ms. steinle was allegedly murdered by mr. lopez sanchez who has been in federal custody for about six years on and illegal, on a felony illegal entry into the u.s. i had a hold on them so that when he was released from the bureau of prisons he would go into i.c.e. custody for deportation again. -- i.c.e. had a hold of it. also i.c.e. has a policy that when a local jurisdiction has an active warrant against an individual, then i see yield to that local -- i.c.e. yields to the local authority holding that work and that local authority san francisco county, in this case decided to pursue its warrant. so we took custody of

mr. sanchez, mr. lopez sanchez. and after they took custody of him, i.c.e. patty ward or a detainer lodged against mr. lopez sanchez so that when san francisco finished its prosecution, then it returned mr. lopez-sanchez back over to i.c.e. for deportation. and then what happened was after mr. lopez-sanchez was in the custody of san francisco county, the authorities there decided not to prosecute him. and which met that he was eligible for release. and ideally it would have been to i.c.e. which had the detainer in place. however, due to its local politics, san francisco county

had a situation, a sanctuary policy where they just did not honor those warrant. and so it was not so i go through it to say that it was not the fault of i.c.e. it was not a breakdown in federal immigration enforcement that resulted in that resulted in kate steinle is murder by allegedly, by mr. lopez-sanchez. it was not the fault of your department, although they're trying to make it appear to be that way and in fact under this president there have been this president is now known as the deep order in chief. why is that? >> -- deep order. is because over 2 million people have been deported under his

presidency, which is more than they were deported under the previous administration in eight years with 17 months left on his term is that the reason why he's not as the deporter-in-chief? >> well, let me answer your question are going after companies that do things. one, as i've mentioned, i believe it is important that we focus our deportation resources on threats to public safety. and with our new policy i believe we are doing that increasingly so. a higher percentage of those in immigration detention today been used to be the case are those who are in my top two priorities for removal. 76% of those in immigration detention state are in my top 30 for removal, the fellas. those apprehended at the border

i want to focus our resources on threat to public safety. i know the president supports that and he shares that view. the other thing i will say in response to your question is come as i mentioned earlier i think we need to evaluate carefully whether it is appropriate in every case for a criminal warrant to be a priority over and immigration detainer. it may not be. it may need to be some additional flexible and discretion built into that. so i want to evaluate any such policy. >> thank you, and i yield back spirit the gentleman yield back. now recognize mr. jordan. >> secretary johnson, on november 20, 2014 the president issued his now somewhat famous executive order. you did a memo regarding defer action. you call that -- the recall

that's because yes, sir. >> february 16 of this year the judge has a ruling that blocks the action of the present and action outlined in your memo, correct? >> yes, sir. >> during the hearing in front of the judge, general 15 to 2010 your counsel represented to the court quote no application a revised daca will be accepted until the 18th of february, 2015. is that correct, mr. johnson? >> i don't know exactly what the colloquy was. >> this is from your counsel and from the court. but regardless of what it was the representation that no applications would be for revised daca be accepted until the 18th of february, that turned out to be wrong. is that accurate? >> well, in fact, -- >> that representation was made in front of the court was not accurate speak was like i said i

do know the exact colloquy. i do know that in november we begin issuing three-year renewals consistent with the policy. it was on the face of the policy and it was in -- >> let me read what judge hanen said. because your counsel actually found an advisory with the court clarifying saying even though you said you would not accept application, they would not be revived they, in fact were up to 100,000. here's what the advisory come you advise the court in his what the judge said. the court expects all parties include the government of the united states to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths. that is what the court is extremely troubled by the multiple representations made by the government's council both in writing and orally that no action would be taken pursuant to the 2014 dhs directive until february 18, 2015. here's what i want to

understand. you said you were going to issue but you only issued 100000 three-year deferrals. you have to go to the court what we told you earlier hearing wasn't in fact true. when did you know as the head of this agency, the head of this department that the representation made to judge hanen into the court was in fact, not accurate? >> well, i definitely know that this is an issue for the judge that he's very troubled -- >> that's not my question. we did you know what you are told the court your counselor told the court, when did you personnel as the head of the agency that it was not accurate? did you know when they said it would did you know québec in january that what they were conveying to the court was not to speak with no, i did not know when they said because i was not -- >> so when did you learn? >> sometime around sometime shortly, i don't have exact timeframe but sometime in early march i became aware that this was an issue.

and -- >> and who told you? >> i don't recall. and wanted to be sure that we probably advised the court of this issue and we did. i will say also that the fact that we begin issuing three-year renewals was on the face of the policy, which was in the record of the court. i know this is an issue. i know the judge is troubled by it but -- >> he is not troubled by it. he said it was half-truths deceptive -- is extremely upset. when the judge says that, that you falsely represented something in front of the court you later learned you did it according to what you just told me time and then you can get together i wanted it went exactly you learn and how long after you learned the to convey to the court do you know this because i've already answered that question. >> no, no. when did you convey it? >> idaho many days it was. would've been same day, could've

been two days, i don't know the do you know what do you advise the court you have misrepresented the facts to the court was be and what do you think that advisory? >> i don't know when the advisory was filed. >> march 3, 2015. >> i was going to say i do know it was in early march. >> you know what else happened on march 3 2015? >> obote thinks. >> relative your agency, do you know what happened that day? >> refresh my recollection. >> same day we had a little debate incomes about the funding bill for your agency picks of the same day the dhs funding bill passes congress is the same do you decide to tell the court by the way, we lied to you back we didn't get all the facts earlier. don't you think it would have been nice if the congress during that heated debate, in fact i remember you, you're on tv that entire weekend, that march 1 march 2 in the entire weekend talking about it this bill doesn't get done, if we don't get funding -- hang on. skys going to fall.

it would've been nice if you also told the congress and the american people by the way, we misrepresented the facts to the court dealing with this issue. that you send the advisory the same day the same day we passed the bill puts it would've been nice if we had that information before the day we voted on this and went on record. >> there are so many things wrong with a question that i do not have 37 seconds to answer it. >> let me -- really. march 3 you violate the advisory right? march 3 you filed the advisory. march 3 the bill passes. those are two factor is that you squinted his? >> the gentleman's time has expired. bubble about the secretary to answer the question. >> first of all, my recollection is that i was on the sunday shows earlier in the month of february. that doesn't work, okay? second, speed that's what i would like to know when you found out. >> i don't recall when exactly in the course of the day the

funding bill was passed. and i really don't think one has anything to do with the other. i knew this was an issue that i found out about in early march i wanted the court to the speed it is important enough to advise the corporate them them i didn't import enough to let congress know in the heat of that debate when this is the central issue of that debate that by the way our council didn't represent the facts to the court issued a. that's an important element for this body, parts of the united states and the american people to know in the course of the fundamental debate we're having to go think it's important to know that? >> the gentleman wrote is out of time this time and going to allow you to respond and if i need to go to ms. hsu from california. >> i do not believe one has anything to do with the other. i do not recall whether congress voted for our funding on march 3 on march 4. i tend to think about it on the counter in front of me that he was on march 4. so that is my recollection to i

was intensely interested obviously in the debate going on in this congress about funding our departments i was a productive furlough of other people. so my recollection is that it passed the congress on march 4, but it could be wrong but i don't have a calendar in front of me. >> the gentleman from ohio yields better pitcher whenever to the gentlelady from california ms. chu. >> secretary johnson, i was one of the aid congress did that visited the family detention center and i was horrified by the situation. and i thank you for reevaluating dhs, detention policy and your announcement yesterday that i is will generally not if they received pocket money for credible our reasonable fear. it's a huge step forward and help to bring our policies in line with her international obligation to protect those that are fleeing persecution. the families i spoke with when i was there were not criminals.

they were victims escaping extreme violence. i heard from another from honduras the son and daughter were forced into the drug cartels. sheshe was raped as well as her 15 year-old daughter. she and her daughter escaped but ended up in the detention facilities for monster another have a credible fear determination but then she was given a $10,000 bond obligation which major desperate because she couldn't afford and mike is one of than $1 million because it was unattainable. than her daughter in reaction to the desperation had to be taken to the medical unit for wanting to commit suicide. it's my hope that dhs new path meets -- will no longer be detained and no longer subject to such unreasonable bond. secretary johnson, could you describe how the agency would but this new policy and how long do you expect the review to take? >> well, much of the reforms that we announced and i directed are underway already.

in terms of the review of the cases, the older cases that reviewed has already been undertaken. it has produced results. insurance of a new bond policy, i would also that policy has, in fact, been implemented and is under way. the review that the director directed of this is themselves the advisory committee i would have to get back in terms of the exact status of. >> in fact -- >> thank you for meeting with after you did so. >> thank you. in fact i want to get more clarity on the bonds for the families. will i.c.e. continued using bond for the families? of we work to ensure that these bonds remain reasonable? >> i directed that they be realistic and be reasonable, and i've asked that i received

regular reports on what the bond levels are. i know that i.c.e. is developing it if you haven't already developed, criteria for setting bonds that are consistent and affordable rates. when i was at one of these facilities i was struck by the number of people who were there who had a bond set at your not able to produce the cash. and so one of the things i want to be sure we set at a realistic rate. >> i also want to ask about a different detention center in california. there have been numerous reports documenting inadequate care of the detainees. this facility is run by a private company and we know that there failed to provide adequate medical care resulted in the death of the least one detainee mr. dominguez, who was detained

for five years and died of intestinal cancer several days after he was rushed to the hospital with unusual bleeding. this facility has recently been expanded by 640 beds and its a concern considering the history of medical neglect. so what is current by doing to ensure that private copies that contracts with revised adequate medical care and abides by the i.c.e. performance based national detention standards and? >> this is a priority of mine a focus on an oblique it is it is a priority and focus of the director. i've heard concerns raised about private contractors running detention facilities. i want to be sure that we get this right both with respect to the conditions and with respect to clarity about lines of authority and responsibility. so and have a private contractor

in the mix who is responsible is it day to day to ensure the conditions of confinement? and so it's something that we're looking into innocent and very interested in. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentlelady yield back. the chair now recognizes mr. marino. >> thank you chairman. good afternoon. mr. secretary first as a former u.s. attorney realize the complications involved with dealing all kinds of local enforcement entities. it can be quite chaotic. however, i am disappointed with the administration and the way that not to think directly handling sanctuary cities. i think you can have a much more direct impact by being aggressive as it has in other areas to force sanctuary cities to be in contact with i.c.e.

i have worked with i.c.e. for a great deal of time. i think there are some of the best agents we have in the federal system. i do agree with your position on the pay. but i put most of the blame on sanctuary cities at this point but however i put part of the blame on homeland because of the void between the detained and a ward i know in some situations award may not be applicable but give me some insight on how you see or what directed you can give to sanctuary cities in particular of letting i.c.e. no wind and illegal individual come and illegal person that is in this country is being released from any facility. you have anything in mind at this point? >> if it's somebody if it is

somebody we want for detention purposes removal purposes, my hope is to not be released. i honestly believe the most effective way to go about getting fat undocumented criminals in local jails is through a cooperative constructive effort without -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt that isn't working. i think you have the authority. i think that you need to take a tough position and say in that directive you will respond to is that if you need something done legislatively, come back to it. with all due respect i think that the administration is avoided because of the propensity to want amnesty as the weight of but that's a matter for another day or if want to respond. >> the problem, if i may, for a long time we did take the position that detainees were mandatory. and i was waiting to a lot of litigation in the courts biggest i'm aware of that.

>> we are losing speed so maybe you need to stop out. >> frankly we were losing with a lot of these turkish victims were passing all these lossing thou shall not cooperate with i.c.e. that led to a real public safety problem in my view. which i think we are correcting to. >> anytime you think that you need legislation to. in that direction, please contact us want to switch to another situation here, particularly my tissue but is happening across the u.s. last year the u.s. since the commission promulgated an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines, seven edt which reduced the days of intense love for all drug trafficking by two levels. the amendment was made retroactive and as a result more than 10,000 drug trafficking offenders will be released early from prison beginning november 1 of this year. and i have in front of me just

as pertains to the middle district, 60 people released between november 1 2015 and december 31, 2016 and then more after 2016. as this take a close to the border, those numbers passionate as this dates get closer to the number, those numbers increase. 19 of them are from outside the country. if this list doesn't have and whether they are illegal or not but i would ask if you could take a look at this pay attention to particularly the list of people that are from outside the country to see if they are violent illegals. is put another way we could stop a great deal of what has been taking place particularly with what a separate over the last two weeks. and my condolences to go out to the family. would you please respond? >> i am aware of this issue

with the adjustment to the sentencing guidelines. i'm aware that a number of individuals will be released as a result. unaware a number of them are probably undocumented and we've been working with doj to do the most effective thing for public safety in that regard and will continue to do so. >> i appreciate that and i yield back the one second of my time spent the chair now recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. >> thank you chairman. senator johnson, welcome back to the committee. >> thank you. >> when he testified last may we spoke about drug-related violence in puerto rico. the same subject i raise with virtually every senior dhs and doj official that comes before this committee. like i did then, i want to outline a narrative for you and ask you to comment. i will be brief so you have sufficient time to respond to

and 2011 there were 1136 homicides in puerto rico. an average over three a day. most violent year and territory history. that was nearly the same number of murders as were committed that here in texas which has over 25 million residents compared to 3.5 million puerto rico. most murders in puerto rico are linked to the drug trade. since puerto rico is within the as custom zone and issues by our decisions transporting narcotics from south america to the u.s. mainland when i examined the level of resources at dhs and doj where we are dedicating to combat drug-related violence in puerto rico, it was clear that the federal law enforcement footprint on the island was woefully inadequate. accordingly i do everything within my power to change that dynamic. starting in 2012 under your predecessor, secretary napolitano, the message finally began to sink in the dhs

component agencies like the coast guard, i.c.e., cbp start to set up step up their game. the coast guard has massive increase the number of hours that it ships and planes been conducting counter drug patrols around the puerto rico. i.c.e. agents in i.c.e. searched its agents in puerto rico where they arrested hundreds of violent crimes and these vast quantities of illegal drugs and firearms. cbs in control of the air that program from the air force and moved quickly to repair the raider in southern puerto rico that have been an operative since 2011. the actions taken by dhs in conjunction with its federal and local partners have made a major difference in a very short period of time. each. the murder rate has declined to in 2014 there were 681 homicides in for legal. that is 40% lower than 2011.

in 2015 to date there have been 287 homicides. if current trends continue there will be half as many murders this year they were and 2011. i am not sure if there's any other jurisdiction in the world has experienced such a steep and rapid crime drop the it is critical that we keep our eye on the ball and that we sustained and strengthened this effort especially since notwithstanding notwithstanding, porter because homicide rate is to four times the national average. rest assure i will continue to do my my part. passion of the coast guard is modernize its fleet of vessels in puerto rico replacing our six older vessels with six modern vessels. last week i met with the executive associate director of age eight i wish each and great work to discuss the agency

current posture future plans. on the legislative front i second language in the dhs appropriations bill that will enable cbp to use those revenues from the puerto rico trust fund and general appropriation from congress to support air and marine operations in the territory. i would welcome any comments you might have and hope you can assure me that puerto rico will continue to be a top priority for dhs. thank you. >> the answer is yes and since we last met last year we have created an operationalized my southern border campaign strategy which brings to bear all the resources of my department in different regions in a coordinated fashion or doing away with stovepipes. we have a joint task force east for example, which is for the southeast part of the country and the maritime approaches where we now have in a combined

and coordinated what all of the border security law enforcement assets at my department devoted toward southeast. we now have the coast guard cbp, i.c.e., working together in a coordinated fashion more public safety and border security. i think that's a positive step and i think it will be a positive step for puerto rico as well. >> thank you so much. >> picture of recognize the gentleman from texas mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator johnson, i'd like to go to the 30000 convicted criminal aliens the administration released last year. it was 36084 it's been over 30,000 the last several years. about 2000 of the 30000 had to be released because of the supreme court case but that left 28,000 data don't believe need to be released.

a partial breakdown of the 28,000 convicted criminal aliens the administration released and have to include 5000 convicted and dangerous drugs 500 convicted of the stolen vehicles, 200 convicted of sexual assault, 60 convicted of homicide over 300 convicted of commercialized sexual offenses and over 100 convicted of kidnapping. why did the administration released them? entity in judgment will the administration continue to release these types of individuals speak with as we've discussed i would like to see that number greatly reduced to the extent legally possible. and so last year i.c.e. at my encouragement and direction issued new policies to tighten up on a situation where someone who has been convicted of a crime and to serve their sentence and transferred to immigration has been released. so we have a higher level of approval for doing so.

we should never these people for lack of space or budgetary concerns. >> you expect us to become dramatically in the next just because i would very much hope and light to see it come down. >> that's pretty much up to the positiondecision whether continued to release individuals back into communities. many of them are convicted of additional crimes which i think could have been avoided. doesn't sound like he disagreed. >> i want to see that never come down dramatically. as you point out that is the supreme court decision which constrains our discussion somewhat. >> that only applies to about 8%. >> and also a lot of it is up to the immigration judges but i want to see this number come down. >> i hope you can succeed. that number has been 30,000 are over for the last soviet that i haven't seen any improvement. in 1996 bill that happened to introduce became law. a part of that law mandated that

local officials cooperate with federal immigration officials. do you feel that san francisco and other sanctuary cities are violating current federal law? >> i don't have the judgment with regard to that. i dfective approach is a cooperative one. i don't have speakers i heard you say that. you have no opinion with you think sanctuary cities are violating current federal law which i missed in your family with? >> i didn't have a legal judgment on that question. >> i am appalled that you don't. one fact is that under this administration the number of sanctuary cities has been increasing dramatically. has the administration done anything to discourage a city from becoming a sanctuary city speak with absolutely every day. we are speed know. all these new sanctuary cities where you have city councils voting -- >> i personally along with other

senior officials on this department engaging mayors governors, county supervisors, city council members about cooperating with us pursue it to the new speed is not cooperative am asking you if you discouraged any city from becoming a sanctuary city. >> i am encouraging people to cooperate. cooperate. >> the answer is no your not tried to discourage? >> i said yes spirit that's after they become a century city. become a century city to ask you did you discouraged any city from trying to become a sanctuary city speak as well look, there are -- >> that's critically cannot do anything to discourage cities from becoming -- >> irrespective of what label put on it, there are now 300 jurisdictions that have to one degree or another directed limitation on the ability to operate with us. >> did he do anything to prevent -- prevent any of those 300 cities -- [talking over each other]

>> he did anything to prevent any of the cities to become a sanctuary city? >> a lot of jurisdictions i meet with probably regard themselves as century city to i don't know -- >> i think it's clear you don't you did not tried to discourage anything from becoming a century city. one more question for the president said with regard to the surge last summer of illegal immigrants to do this is coming from central america, that they're going to be sent home. it's my understanding roughly 92% are still in the united states. why hasn't the president kept his promise to return those individuals own? >> when you're talking about children, i think that's what your asking -- >> not entirely regardless of how you want to label them the president said they would be returned home. >> inevitably removal and repatriation of a family or a child from central america becomes a time passionate as i'm sure you know --

>> the you agree with my statistic that 92% roughly are still in the united states at the end of the president said speed i haven't heard it put that way before so i don't know. i do know that an awful lot are still here. >> i think is 92%. i yield back spirit the chair when i recognize mr. gutierrez. >> welcome secretary. happy to have you back. first of all i thank the gentleman did misspeak on the issue. not all jurisdictions call himself a sanctuary cities. political term political term of art. some people appropriate and others don't. but it is clear that a federal district court from oregon ruled a county violate a person's fourth amendment right to be free from unreasoning seizure by keeping a person in custody is a

nothing more than -- that's a federal court that made that determination. not the secretary of homeland security. a federal circuit court, the third circuit ruled because details are not mandatory to volunteer with all due respect to the gentleman from texas and the law they passed in 1996. that's what a federal court said. ballinger law enforcement agents are free to disregard the. that is exactly what we are doing. second homeland security asking him how many people have you tried to dissuade? that federal courts have said that the detainer's are a violation and are not enforceable. regardless of what we hear believe they are. and so why don't you just call in the mayor of san francisco but all in america chicago and the mayor of new york? 300 jurisdictions and bring them

forth and. what i going to do, lock them up? they don't abide by the way you look at the world and how things should be enforced. these are local jurisdictions that have made a decision that if they carry out local police enforcement which is a local issue, this is the way they want to do it. it cannot go to cooperate. what we can do instead of having this hearing year, which will lead to nothing unfortunate, mr. chairman, this will lead to nothing. this will not lead to a solution that everybody will feel better if you headlines, put something on facebook and they will say we put in a days days work. it will lead to nothing but why do we get to the business of making sure? i'd like to ask the question, of the 11 million undocumented immigrants that all of them crossed the border between mexico and the united states? >> no. as you know a lot of the

undocumented come here by crossing the southern border. there's a variety of different ways. >> did millions of them come in legally to the united states with a tourist visa, student visa or when workers these and overstay eventually? >> some are, yes sir. >> so that if you shut down the border there was to be millions of undocumented workers in the united states of america? way or another. to make them accountable and to

account for them. and so a lot of us want to see us address this population for people in a way that promotes law enforcement and it's simply the right thing to do. >> 11 million people not one of them crossed the border ever again, they would still be hundreds of thousands and, indeed, millions of these overstays because the only border into the united states isn't to surprise of many probably, not the border between mexico and the united states. is lax and jfk and chicago o'hare where people enter into this country legally every day and have overstayed their visa. and the we can also do something as we look at the broken immigration system, we should not just focus on that border because i think focusing on the border really doesn't give us a to nature of the problem that we

confront. i'd like to just and because you were asked earlier about whether or not when people applaud for deferred action, if they are asked if they are a gang member. now, of course as members of congress filled out the forms or help people fill out the forms, they would know that they are asked. so i understand if you've never filled out one of these forms of your staff is never filled one out you wouldn't know. i just want to make sure that you did the right into mr. secretary. it is past. ask them have you ever -- that was your answer but it says have you ever been arrested or charged with come convicted of a crime in any country other than the united states with a donkey ask them here but you ask them about the country of origin. you ask him particularly if ever been a gang member and they must

come out at this come if you answer yes if you've ever been arrested, charged or convicted of felony or misdemeanor including incidents when you in juvenile court you want to be driven to me that get to everybody about everything to if you energy gives you must include a certified court especially congress record charging document, sensing record, except that each of us unless of course prohibited under state law. i want to make sure the committee understood when people's lives are defer action, and that only have if the answer yes, although those documents must be present and lastly, they have to be fingerprinted. those fingerprints are checked. i swear to the children who checks the fingerprints that the daca recipients they did i believe it's a combination agency probably doesn't interagency process. >> that's what i thought. it's an interagency process. thank you so much.

>> i think mr. forbes broader point can't think that of it as give a transcript as opposed to records. transcripts is may very well be a member of the gang and a be charged or prosecuted with it. i think that was his broader point i will go to the judge from texas. >> thank you and thank you mr. secretary, for me. my friend from tennessee was talking about all these threats that apparently in his mind conservatives but i don't know where his numbers were coming from. nothing like what i had been seeing. as i understand the underwear bomber was certainly not an evangelical christian, not a conservative. did you know for sure was he a member of al-qaeda and arabian

peninsula? i know that was floated at one time. the underwear bomber. >> i would regard it as part of aqap, yes, sir. >> i know that was before your watch obviously. the boston bombers speak it happened when i was at the department of defense. i'm very familiar with the case's. but you're not going to take credit for letting it happen so. >> i was at dod. part of national security. >> you are not in charge of tsa when he got through wearing a bomb in his underwear speaks i was in charge of tsa in december. >> thank you. fort hood i know some of my colleagues prefer to recall that workplace violence but when someone is yelling, indicating that he's doing it in the name of allah that doesn't seem to be exactly a right wing radical evangelical christian. i know there's been discussion

about francisco sanchez in san francisco. and i know as a former judge, an ongoing problem come one in particular i sentenced him to get nine dwis before he got to my felony court. and i thought it is going to be a threat i will send him to prison and six months later he's back in my court turkey said that he was deported 30 days or so after i sent him to prison. and i come back and ask you to bring back to san francisco -- francisco sanchez but he was deported five times. have you analyzed each of those deportations where they occurred and where sanchez may have reentered the country? >> i've looked at a very detailed timeline of each of the five removals. i don't, sitting here, recall

exactly where he was removed, from what point, from what station. we don't know for obvious reasons how and when he reentered the united states, or at least i do know. may be indicative of something acknowledged how and when he did it. but sitting to i don't know the circumstances. i don't know where he crossed the border those five times. >> wouldn't that seem to be important to know where somebody reenters five times? >> absolutely. >> i would encourage you and i would like to find out from somebody in your department with those five great entries were. with it all down in south texas or were some in the arizona area? with a california? it doesn't seem i will ever be up to get a grip on dealing with weak entries by people that come in illegally if we don't know where they are reentering. the fellow i mentioned that i

have dealt with when he is back in my court, i asked how he came back in and he said they took into the border and watched him walk across, and then after the officials that took him to the border drove off, then he came back across and ended up back in our county. so it just seems like that ought to be where the focus is. is there any indication that if mr. sanchez had been given amnesty summer between the first illegal entry and the fifth that he would not have shot kathryn steinle? any indications that amnesty would've prevented this? >> i'm not sure i understand your question. >> i think it's a pretty basic question.

the white house is saying that the fault for the shooting of this beautiful young lady in san francisco was because republicans have not passed comprehensive immigration reform, and we know we pass laws. we appropriated money to build a fence, to build a virtual fence, things that have not been done. and i'm just wondering if we can figure out what the white house is thinking because obviously an amnesty was going to be part of a comprehensive immigration reform. i'm just wondering if we all of a sudden declared mr. sanchez as being legally here, if that would have kept him from pulling a gun and killing kathryn steinle. i can't find any correlation to that and i'm just trying to figure out what the heck the

white house thinks would have occurred differently if this man had been granted amnesty. i can't say that it would've prevented her shooting. well, i don't to be honest i don't know what speed i do prefer you to be honest, thank you spent i am interest in promoting cooperation with local all enforcement so we can more effectively get at people like this individual. >> so if there were amnesty i don't see how that particularly helps -- you just let everybody legal, then i don't see that it makes a difference. and i realized time has run out but is dhs still shipping people to different parts of the country after the intro to legally? depending on whether you have failedfound i was asked to be shut? >> i don't know that that's our policy. ..

mr. chairman, mr. nelson, thank you for being here today ever since, the dhs and san francisco have pointing fingers in fact i

heard several people on the other side. i asked my staff last tuesday even if they had released two i.c.e. they would have released him to san francisco because the criminal criminal war and despite san francisco being a known sanctuary city it doesn't come by and rating me releases hardened criminal aliens. it makes sense to release that authority to the portable jurisdiction that will never return him to you for the deportation purposes. >> no. note to the first question.

so they wouldn't have released them - spinnaker i wasn't a part of the conversation with your congressional staff, sir. >> you are standing by the answer but not by the policy. in response to the question to release somebody what are you going to do about it? it's built into the situation where there is a choice and there is a jurisdiction that once the individual under the arrest warrant and there should be some discretion built into what is the best course for the

public safety. >> this young lady who gets to that determination it's not the first time that this has happened in fact i keep telling the american people they are saving there is nothing illegal aliens and the only reason that we knew this because he killed somebody. we keep releasing him and he's been detained five times. he's been across the border. we are not stopping him from entering the united states. we don't know if we can say that america is safe when people like this continue to come into the united states. i want to turn the timer over. i'm sure given your background as a law-enforcement officer and prosecutor i am sure that you can feel and understand the frustration.

it provides a release. it's released to the city that we knew ahead of time this was going to happen and it would be one thing to release someone to the jurisdiction for a murder charge and assault serious offense. it would be one wanting to do that so they could prosecute him and if there is a victim and folder that is exactly what you would want to do. why do they require his presence in san francisco to decide to dismiss the case lacks he wasn't going to be a witness anyway. you get the frustration. it would be in a position to say