my time is up in the chair now recognizes mr. hice for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. bottom line, when we all come to this that everybody involved when it comes to the issue of criminal aliens, the public safety is paramount. for past but dumbs as well as potential future big guns. do we agree on that? with these criminals under the custody of i.c.e., either commit it sex criminals? >> yeah. >> t. have any idea how many? >> i think the numbers available but i don't have been in front of me. >> be to provide that i would appreciate it. >> in 15 ,-com,-com ma sir? >> from my understanding there

were almost a released. let me go on from there. of the sex offenders who are released back into society, does your agency notify law enforcement? >> we do and this is what we testified the last time i was here. i'm proud of the fact we as good up, the law enforcement notification system whereby when we are releasing within offenders, but other criminals into a state that they have indicated and are going to a specific state. we notified them -- the state database usually for state office, for example in my state of texas and not. >> you promised last time you were here that by the end of 2015 deadline force that would be notified. i spoke with the sheriff this week ,-com,-com ma which is the

second largest county in america next to paris county, texas where criminal aliens were being released. he says he would not hear from you good >> i did exactly as they promised. we did get the notification system up and running to this day. what year we are working no-space two. >> so you are saying when an illegal alien can come the sex offender or any other released into the community, you assured me that law enforcement is notified. >> the state law enforcement. the state responsible for all the local jurisdictions within. >> not the specific counties? >> 254 counties in the state of texas. >> is not where the rubber hits the road? >> that is why we are in phase two which is communicating with the specific local jurisdictions.

>> what about victim notification when a criminal is released. someone who was, the is released. it's a big notified? >> where the notification system with respect to the penal system and people sign up for that and for that family to issue notices. >> let's suppose he is released. they do not register as we know many of them do not do on the sex offender registry. how does the previous pic to know that that predator is released? >> a sign-up, mr. root wanted to be advised about this he means with respect to that particular legal immigrant. but they sign up at the victim notification system and that is how we give them information. >> all of them sign up? >> i can't fail than sign-up. >> my question has to do with the predators released.

i've introduced a bill and i think that it closes this loophole, h.r. 2793. it would require i.c.e. to register the sex offenders on the national registry when they are released. right now that is required of every citizen of the united states who commits a crime, and they are put on the registry. that is not the case with illegal aliens that commit sex crimes. i don't understand that for one reason it seems very commonsensical to me that if and illegal individual in this country commits a sex crime committing it to be put on the sex offender registry when released. would you have a problem with supporting a bill? >> understand that is what happens with respect to any person. >> it does not happen with respect to illegals.

>> my concern is we expect that person -- >> to expect a person to put themselves on a national sex offender registry. it doesn't happen. >> that's what she provided. >> you have a problem with trade to being required to make sure they are put on the national sex offender registry. >> code like to look at that instead he appeared immaculate like all of our colleagues to get on board with h.r. 2793. this is a commonsense approach to close an enormous loophole by requiring people to be on the national sex offender registry. >> 2793. >> advantage of the men could chair recognizes himself for five minutes. i'm going to come to you because in this testimony this morning you've made a point in terms of the law that you need help with.

you said it's somebody else's fault. you continue to focus on everyone else as has a statement and yet some of the blame actually rests directly with you. that's where when i go with because you've been equivocating in my opinion with questions that have been answered. you know specifically the ones that i had issue with when you were taught in with mr. grothman about the fact you know the entire universe of those who have committed crimes that get detained, do you know who they are? yes or no. >> or the country legally? >> who get arrested by local law enforcement. you get notified of all of this under the new system which would be priorities and force the program? >> you know, yes or no of the people that are there? >> not necessarily. >> and is that a change?

>> is what a change? >> where they don't come to dhs anymore. is that a change in the way you've been notified over the last 18 months. yes or no. i know the answer, yes or no. is it a change? >> i don't understand the question. >> under the secure community sites, they were required to come and let you know they had someone who had committed a crime and it actually let you know that. is that not correct? >> i don't know the specific. >> you ahead of the agent fee. >> , congressmen and i've had to read up on it. >> the program has never been an since i've been a. >> let's look at it. you say they'll participate. what would you classify as participating by someone under the pep program. >> i didn't say they were all participating. that's not correct.

>> you said -- >> we've made progress. >> so if someone has committed a violent not under the pep program, are they required to let you know we have them incarcerated? yes or no. >> note. >> so we could have an illegal aliens that has had a violent crime and local law enforcement does not have to let i.c.e. no. >> doesn't have to. >> many do but they don't have to. do you not see a problem with that? >> that is why working so hard. >> let me go further. why would you have -- why would i.c.e. be arresting, detaining people of 40% less people than we did in previous years. >> apprehensions. apprehension numbers are down.

>> is it your testimony here today that there is less people committing the crimes? >> i didn't get to finish my answer. >> i am all ears. i want to understand how all of a sudden there has been this 40% reduction in crimes by illegal aliens according to your stat. because you are now 40% less administrative removal. how does that happen this year? what happened? >> 40% less removal. >> we have fewer people in the system. >> by design because you change the system to make sure there are fewer people in the system and that is the frustration of the parents is what happens is you have made the universe lower so you can report less people

than you let out of jail free. do you not see the problem? >> you want to go over the numbers i'd be glad to go over it. you tell me how it can be 40% less. >> as i start a come a part is the apprehension. we are going about apprehensions of our decisions on a very informed -- >> no, not informed because you have to know the whole verse of the people in order for it to be informed. so how many drug dealers -- how many kidnappers do you let get out of jail free card? >> none that have a final order removed well. >> you were equivocating again. >> there is not simplistic answers. >> out of the 7000 that you have the discretion to let go, were any of those violent?

do you have total discretion over letting go. they weren't traffic offenses. or any of those violent? >> yes. some hide can make it. >> don't blame it on everybody else. >> i'm not blaming it on everybody else. >> violent criminals figure discussion have been let go. >> yes. >> do not see a problem with that? >> sir -- >> don't go there because i could go further. it's prosecutorial discretion. that is your discretion and that is my problem. i'm out of time. are you willing to take me up and go throw these numbers after the hearing? >> i'm always happy to meet with you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. thank you, mr. chairman.

i've got a couple of lines of questions. i want to start with this discretion stuff that everybody is talking about. congress has given him that you guys, the discretion to not do poor people. i give my children discretion to spend their allowance as they see fit. i would probably have to come back and revisit that if i thought they were being about how they were exercising that discretion. to me, it seems like you are exercising your discretion in a way coming up with tragic results. i think we can all understand you've got a violent criminal who is half the life and isn't expected to last six months. of course it's not worth the money was probably not impossible to safely =tranfour that person to their country of origin. that is the far extreme. you are too far towards we are

just going to let them go. i think the criticism you are hearing from the members of congress, even though we've given you the ability to do something doesn't mean you should do it. i just want to clear that out because in all the back-and-forth here that hasn't entirely been made clear. the whole point of this hearing is there a good many members on this panel who have you up here because we think that discretion is in being exercised by his day. >> i got that impression. >> i want to make sure everybody was clear on that. i want to talk a minute about the priority enforcement program. i hear quite a bit for my local shared syntax is an essay type thing, everybody loves the shares then they'll have an opinion. what i hear from them is that they are having problems in getting you guys to determine

about the teeners. sometimes they will arrest somebody and they will be three, four, five days before they hear back from you guys as to whether or not the issue detains them. by that time the person is already bonded out. so how can we improve the process to where they get what they taken number, 24 hour response there. >> i don't have to tell you this 254 counties. >> everybody's got a computer. >> yeah. but the problem is getting to the specific local jurisdiction within a timely manner. you know, we try to get people there as quickly as possible. >> we want the determination whether to keep them. the sheriffs don't drive them to you.

they will be happy to deliver. >> congressman, thank you so much. would you give me the names. i'm not only kidding. i would like to know any sheriff that is having difficulty in hearing back from i.c.e. i want to know this. >> we located the information. >> we work with local people understand that improve some. >> the great pit of texas does a very good job. >> were spending an awful lot of money doing the job the federal government can do. we could do a whole number hearing on how much texas should be reimbursed for doing the federal government's job. i also want to talk about the 287 g program. but the shares have found is if they have the revenue to pay for mebody in a lot of counties don't have the ability to pay for a person.

you are giving the training for free, but they've got to pay their salary. what has been found to affect given that program in addition to his u.k. jailer in that program where they can actually access to computer information database directly and they are able to determine. i would encourage you to work on growing the program. i work with the appropriations to make sure you've all have the money to continue to make that work. i'm going to get back for a second and you don't make a decision for everybody there. it is delegated down the line. how do you ensure that it is consistent in how do you ensure that the person that has that discussion isn't that a disposition to let them all go. >> no, sir. they all know my background a

note that would be fully unacceptable. what we do is we train. we make things clear, give guidance. we resisted. i have myself at least once, maybe twice got on the phone with each one of the 24 field office director's responsibility across the country to save my expert patient and to make sure people have the message of how we go about our business with respect to detention and the exercise of discretion in

>> has evolved the scriptures and the statue, sir. i'm not going to go outside the log what i do. i cannot deport somebody without a final order for mobile has had the entire framework you have provided, including appeals in consideration by the courts with respect to their claims of

asylum or torture or whatever it is. >> say you are releasing them in america, not deporting them in tears came here and we've had numerous the samples of where they have gone and committed crimes again. don't you find that to be appalling? >> that's horrible. i wish there were no crime committed by anyone. >> let me ask you since fiscal year 2012, the annual budget has increased more than $680 million. is that correct? the figures i've been given. since 2012 would increase by than $680 million. but at the same time the number of aliens removed decreased by 174,000. 17,400,000. can you tell me what the reason for that is? >> you can only remove those people without final order.

>> if we catch a budget would you stop releasing them? we are giving you money and you are releasing them. >> sarah, you are misrepresenting the fact -- >> all way of increased over $680 million in new decreased the number of people you deported by 174,000 good >> let's make it clear that these releases only 7000 plus have been entirely discretionary. but it's not willy-nilly. it's made on a case-by-case analysis that we have on the bus. >> let me ask you this. dhs leadership to $113 million that congress appropriated to i.c.e. detention and reprogrammed it by secret service, fine without it are you familiar with that? >> that is a secretarial level decision. >> zero, secretary level decision. >> we are department of homeland

security. >> you would have known about that. in the process. >> i am informed about it? i'm informed about the process. >> we are giving you money and here we are releasing less than 174 -- i'm just appalled by this. this does not make any sense at all what we're doing. no wonder america is upset. they should be upset. mr. chairman, i apologize and i appreciate this. this is ludicrous. >> the gentleman's time. >> i yield you >> i recognize mr. palmer for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. director saldana, critics have argued one factor is to believe once they enter the country they will not be removed. that's been pretty well established here.

secretary jeh johnson recently stated that the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country are not going away and that enough find this absolutely astonishing. does not include those who have criminal records? say yes or no. i'm just asking. >> closer question specifically? >> jeh johnson stated 11 million illegal immigrant in the country and the fact of united states citizens. it's not include those who are here with criminal records? >> i don't think he said united states to defend. >> effect and affect united states defense. we are not debating what he said. i'm asking you if you believe that includes those here with criminal records. are they saying? >> we are doing our best to remove them. i don't know about that.

let me tell you what happened in alabama earlier this month. authorities in oxford, alabama, not my district arrested three men. two from honduras in one from mexico. one of the men, antonio espinoza had drawn no had been ordered removed from the united states according to the affidavit it appears to go to voluntarily deport himself. one of the other guys, henrique did need to of mexico was illegally present in the united states. he has prior convictions for in 2011 and arrested 2008 in the

district court of dallas county, texas. they were working for a security group out of honduras who is a front for a drug cartel. they were here and here is what the affidavit says. they were here, another for steering debt collector for a drug organization, they were going into a private residence to kidnap and benitez stated he and the other individuals traveled to oxford, alabama had firearms, clothing and other gear to do the job and the group wasn't struck it to take its occupants captive. here is the point. two of these men have criminal records. one goes back to 2008. they are still here.

because of the excellent work of the oxford police department oxford police department tommy stopped them on a traffic stop and realize some enlisted right when they saw them in camouflage and by the way, one of the weapons with a smith & wesson pistol that was confirmed stolen by the arlington police department. can you imagine what would've happened if they carry this out and kidnap the people. but a test plan to use the handgun to shoot during a home invasion. i remind you this is alabama. just about every house has a gun. and for good reason. i won't get into this administration's policy in gun control, the let me tell you, can you imagine what would've happened if they shot the police officer? this is insane. you let people in here. you do criminal background checks. they commit crimes. one guy a 10-year-old girl in

alabama. here is another one. 34 arrests over 12 years. he's a palestinian when he was arrested by the newtown police department in my district. i said they couldn't afford them because the u.s. doesn't recognize palestine. director saldana come it's been reported trade to recently proposed prints be taken custody of children who entered the united states illegally without an adult relative. let me ask you this. among the many policy suggestions made, do you think this is an effective policy for illegal immigrants who are repeat criminal offenders not considered priority one for dhs policy? >> i would consider that. we have not proposed that but i would consider it good >> why haven't you? >> done what?

>> why haven't you taken that action. >> i will tell you there's a lot of things they need to get to a nine title and as fast as i can. we have that under geithner right now we are looking at it. >> pedaling as fast as you can while you much good for people. >> .the best -- >> i yield back. >> that's pathetic. mr. walker of north carolina for five minutes. the mac mr. chairman, i want to start by recognizing two groups of people. the first one is sarah root, age 21. i'm proud of you are representing her today and i'm proud of your service to our country. kesey chadwick. ms. hartling ,-com,-com ma i can

only imagine what your family has gone through losing her 25-year-old beautiful daughter here. chief martin, thank you are coming all the way. there is another group of people that i want to talk about, three people again. they also have something in common today in the fact that all three of them were arrested on previous charges before they ultimately committed this heinous crime. victor ramirez was an illegal from mexico. the chief did his part of her 15 month time he arrested this gentleman six times over 15 times. yet this is the guy with his partner at the necessary space and in with a hammer. somehow she thought that, survived eight days. and then we hear today from my

colleagues that the way we justify this is the criminal aliens according to one statistic commits (-left-paren the general public of which you. .. >> because i see many that is where people scale those walls very easily.

that's just not the only answer there's lots of things we have to do to secure the border. >> it's easier to not have the wall instead of making someone go and scale that wall come in your opinion? i don't understand that it. here's the data. let me start with a question, do you believe sexual assault abuse and exploitation are heinous of crimes? >> yes. >> earlier my colleague talked about charges. these 19,000 are not charges, their convictions. >> yes. >> including 1614 convictions of sexual -- my wife researching of the people who are going to the very darkest point of life, 352 convictions involve commercial sex trade. my state is number nine in the country. yet for some reason is listed as priority queue instead of priority one. why is that? >> because those serious

offenses are listed in priority one. the most serious, terrorism. it's a matter of directing resources and the personal hurt the country the most speak you are telling me that sexual offenses or the right of a six or seven year old child is not as an important offense as -- >> i was a united states attorney. you know the answer to that question. of course, it is a serious offense. >> i'm just going to what you just told me. you said that is priority two. >> in your authorization you directed us. you have directed us to prioritize, you direct a sector, to traditional prioritize and identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime by severity of the crime. that is exactly what we've done. you may disagree with the way they were placed that you directed us to do that and the secretary did not. >> here's what hope we agree on is that with a major problem

when we of illegal aliens in this country committing heinous crimes are not being deported. one more thing in closing in my 30 seconds i have left. the for statement that law enforcement needs be concerned about the delicate task of not putting some of the national origin into the definition of the criminal activity. he believed law enforcement should stop, i look achieve more who worked for 30 years in england activities, did some great work in el salvador. do you believe we should stop or drop the raised part of describing some of the crimes going on? >> we have to look at whether some is in the country was not a citizen. we have to look at the country of their origin. if i do know those yes or no with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and recognize myself for five minutes. >> ms. saldana you've gobbled of attention after asset when you encouraged us this morning to drop political banter. i think he pointed to the rules and statutes in front of you and you invited us to help you develop a system that works.

i would like to talk about that. you and i talked about that in the past. let's get back to something we talked about before, which is would help you develop a system that worked if we figured out a way to require local law enforcement to cooperate with your retainer request? >> we need to figure a way to get law enforcement to work with us. just like his individual from law enforcement works with us. i don't think he pays kindly to us browbeating him and forcing them to do things -- >> let's stay on topic. you know where i'm getting at, which is what it help you develop a system that works if we required over law-enforcement to cooperate with i.c.e.? >> compulsory? it would help me to some extent that's what i'm doing is i'm trying to get -- >> to what extent? that's the third answer i have gotten.

i asked you the same question in june 2015. i asked you quote would help to clarify the law to make it clear that it was mandatory that those local communities cooperate with jodi kantor request come into entered thank you, amy, yes. the next day you released a statement that read in another part a different answer quote in effort of federal legislation now to make a standalone forsman's compliance with i.c.e. detainer would be a highly counterproductive to do. today just give me a third answer which it would help. let's talk about how requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with i.c.e. would help you. >> in enforcing the 4000 laws the department of justice had to enforce and had to enforce and itunes was as united states attorney i found the best way to support is through cooperation and agreement extended by side by side. >> but if i'm in to see this as we want to be a century city, we don't want to cooperate, my guess is a chance for cooperation is probably gone at

that point. would it help you do your job if we went to the so-called sanctuary city and say you can't do that. not cooperate with i.c.e. when it comes to getting with the source of people who killed their children? >> i worked with all the cities rather than what -- >> how isn't working in san francisco? >> we are making some inroads. >> would it help you if we required them to do it? >> i don't think the government would be the local government would be more cooperative if you browbeat them over the head by saying the fed -- >> how about if we required by law o organize some type of federal money? >> i think at least i for sure and read that state and local events to what the federal government to tell them what to do. >> do you think they should have the right to tell the federal government they will not cooperate with an immigration issue? >> no. >> so they don't have a right to do it but they are doing it anyway and you don't want us to bring it into line. >> i am telling you the realities of the real world, and

that is in trying to get people to work with us for the bottom line and that is the public safety. >> i hate to be melodrama about it because it's not what i'm very good at the turnaround until the people behind you about the real world. >> i have been on i hope they are hearing the. >> does the sanctuary city program put your field personnel at more risk and it would be otherwise? >> having to, yes, having to go into a jurisdiction into somebody's home when we could've gotten them at a local sheriffs or police department, yes, it does put them at risk. >> so you don't want us to take steps to lower the risk for your own people speak with clients in getting an opportunity to get this done. it is love in effect since last july. it's not even last july. is no imminent danger to give me some time to work with state and locals. i've made tremendous headway. of the top 25 jurisdictions that did not honor today to come we

got 17 act at the table. >> it's been a year since you here last time. let me ask you this. does a sanctuary city program put the public at risk? >> i don't know with a sanctuary city program is. >> let's use the terminology which is the program spyware cities that were not going to cooperate with i.c.e. i.c.e. calls and says detain the person you just picked up and the city says no. we don't want to do that. does that put the public at more risk speak with him when every jurisdiction to cooperate with i.c.e. >> we can help you. would you like us to help you? >> i need all the help i can get. i will work with you to try to come up with a rational system by which we can improve that situation. >> which is the third answer you've given so thank you for that and i yield back the balance of my time to the chair and double recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all over this country, people have read headlines and stories

similar to the ones of some that i have here. and this one story has been mentioned a few times already today, but i was presiding over the house earlier and didn't get in on all this and i know there are some people watching them who probably didn't hear some of these things earlier. the "washington examiner" had a headline that said i is releases 19,723 criminal aliens, 208 convicted of murder, 900 of sex crimes, and before that there was a story from the "washington times" which the headline says 3700 illegal immigrant threat level one criminals were released in the u.s. by the department of homeland security, and that story said most of the illegal immigrant criminals, all my security officials released from custody were discretionary many the department could have kept them in detention but chose

instead to let them onto the streets. some of those released were the worst of the worst. more than 3700 threat level one criminals who are deemed a top priority for deportation were still released out into the community. that's why people are so upset. that's why people are so angry about all of this. and then earlier we had testimony in this committee from jessica from the center for immigration studies, and she testified that i.c.e. officials have told her that since the administration's policy on prosecutorial discretion were expanded, they are processing a small fraction of the number of aliens that they use to process. one recently told me that his office used to process as many as 100 aliens per day but since the president's executive actions went into effect now they are processing closer to five aliens per day with the same staff and budget.

and he seems to me that this is a shameful record, and the people at the top should be embarrassed about this. as mr. carter pointed out about how the funds have gone up so much, and yet the prosecutions have gone way down. and i don't, i doubt that there's another agency in the entire federal government that has gotten the percentage increases, director saldana, doctor agency has, percentage wise. i mean, we just keep pouring more and more and more money into your agency and we are getting less and less and less for that money. i can tell you that people all over this country are angry about that and upset about that. are you embarrassed about this in any way? are you ashamed, disappointed? surely you're not happy about

all this that we've talked about here this morning. >> no, sir. and i will tell you, i think you may have missed what i spoke earlier about the fact that i would like not to see one person injured one person killed at the hands of someone who is in the country illegally. >> that's -- >> but, congressman, when people say that we've released 19,723 people, it fails to point out the fact that two-thirds of that were by court order or an instruction of the supreme court of the united states. and that is a misrepresentation. that's what i object to. >> it's a terrible thing. i've got stories up here from the "texas tribune." they tell about one man who passed through the web county jail for times, more than half a dozen charges for allegedly beating his wife to death with a hammer.

another man spent three months in the county jail, four months in state, six years in federal prison for multiple felony presents. at the time you went on a random shootings very killing 203 more and, of course, you're the famous case of this man in san francisco who shot katy steinle to death after he had racked up a criminal record including seven felonies, mostly drug-related. people are really angry about these sanctuary cities that the administration has gone along with. the american people are the kindest most generous most sympathetic people in this world, and we have allowed far more immigration, meaning many millions more than any other country. indymac and people have gone along with that but they are sick and tired and angry about reading about all these criminals being released and you or somebody will have to do a

lot better job on this. i yield back. >> gentleman yield back. the chairman recognize the gentleman from connecticut. >> i want to thank majority and minority for waking life here today and having the opportunity to participate in this hearing. to chief martin and mr. root, thank you for your presence here. again, your stories are incredibly powerful and women demonstrate that this discussion today is not academic. it has profound real-life impact and it takes a lot of persistence on your part to really be here to remind us of that fact. i am here because one of my constituents is here, ms. wendy hartling, choose joined by attorney chester fairley whose star has been mentioned by other members this morning. again just for less than a year ago just horrific crime took her child, casey chadwick, frommer.

and i can personally attest to the fact that southeastern connecticut and the whole state -- from her -- -- part of the grief and pain that followed and the admiration that folks have for ms. hartling as mr. lynch said, trying to get some good to come out of this horrific event. it just hasn't drawn admiration from all quarters, so thank you for being here, ms. hartling. i think i'm the last 20 or so all your patience is to be paid off shortly indeed an opportunity to talk. director saldana, the one thing about the casey chadwick case is that really there's just no ambiguity in this instance in terms of whether or not someone's charges were pending our whether or not the individual was convicted of an aggravated versus serious offense.

jean jacques came into the country without documentation. he was convicted by connecticut obama said he served over 15 years in prison. at the completion of his since the department of corrections surrendered him into the custody of the i.c.e. again, the government had run the traps in terms of getting a deportation order completed at that point to any appeals that he tried to oppose have been exhausted so there was a just, again, no sort of glitches that anyone could point to that would interfere with that process going to the next step which is obviously removal from the country. as we heard from ms. maloney, the government of haiti again played it is a very frustrating exercise in terms of verbally granting and then refusing on a number of occasions. a year ago you were before the committee and this question of uncooperative other nations was raise with you. at the time your testimony

stated bolstering i.c.e. the ability to obtain travel documents is an important priority, and i will continue to work closely with the department of state to achieve better cooperation from countries in accepting the return other nationals. again you talk about your efforts with a pep program in the last year or so. can you tell us with some specificity what's going on between i.c.e. and state in the intervening time since he testified to fix this glaring problem? >> i think i said earlier i met with the assistant secretary for consular affairs, ms. bond, and i to i'm going to see her this afternoon about ginny in particular you're so we meet periodically and we made a commitment to continue to get because of want to keep her posted on the country we are having trouble with. so this memorandum of understanding we have, we give her can we meet to discuss what

can be done with particular country. and right now you know countries like syria and iraq and afghanistan which is having tremendous difficulty with. so she has listened. she is promised to follow. she sent a cable out to all our ambassadors across the world last march to say please, be mindful of this, help i.c.e. and other agencies that are seeking to get cooperation from the jurisdiction, and assisted in the efforts to remove people back. >> what levers company, we have levers. member submission that eases that we grant to citizens on these missions come into the u.s., for aid -- >> sanctions, the our sanctions. >> give me an example would have done more than just need to discuss this spill where department of state has? i'm not only with the specifics of what they have done. >> i guess, trying to that sort of the crux of the frustration

at myself in senator blumenthal and murphy have experienced, which is this just screams out for the fact that the agencies and u.s. i.c.e., state department are not getting this done. that's why we requested inspector general's report. that process is underway right now. we are going to be receiving the result of that, but, frankly, i would just say, director, that response is just really not acceptable, given the fact that we have instances where, again, there is just no question about their status in terms of being deported into of other countries stonewall our efforts and to say that the state department's best efforts what is just simply to meet with i.c.e. and to send out warning telegrams to indices. there are other options we have available to us and we need to exercise of those.

>> withholding aid and to sanctions i mentioned, but i just want to be sure, i'm doing the best they can to try to persuade states. state is the most appropriate wages to explain to you i can make the decisions they do. because i can't speak for the department of state. >> again, if i could just have another 30 seconds. again, we experience in this case with the government of haiti again for paperwork reasons stonewalled mr. jacques deportation. i can do more integrating a record of country of origin in terms of interviewing witnesses in the u.s. this guy had been here for over 20 years. there were other ways, verification of country of origin could have taken place on stateside in addition to the state department apply leverage the pressure, which again i think should have been exercise at the greatest and the highest level. this discussion, mr. chairman again, i want to continue with you and the members here about

the fact that the response has not been set aside to get i would ask our letter to you and mr. cummings setting for the ig -- >> is already been submitted. mr. korda, i appreciate your commitment on this issue. the director has agreed within a weeks time to give all the letters and correspondence she is at the state department making his request. the statute is clear. want the sector receives that it says the secretary shall. we will be fascinated and i think you're right, another hearing would be most appropriate i do hope you can join us for that. the gentleman's time has expired. director, we thank you for your being with us or today. the committee will stand in recess until 12:30 p.m. and then we will convene the second panel. we stand in recess. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> today, voice of america director delivers keynote remarks at the leadership forum hosted by the usc annenberg center. this is her first major public appearance since being sworn in as the new director. live coverage at 12:10 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> former supreme court justice john paul stevens delivered the keynote address and answer student questions in recent university of miami law school symposium about students rights on campus. this is about 45 minutes. >> thank you very much and good

afternoon to you and. i'm delighted to be your, thank you for this opportunity. this is my first sort of official appearance after the inauguration and i can think of no higher honor t to do so thano introduce our very distinguished speaker today and also speaking on a vitally relevant issue, currently unfolding on all of our nation's campuses. born in 1920 in chicago and growing up during the great depression, u.s. supreme court justice john paul stevens overcame early challenges to become the third longest-serving justice in the history of the supreme court. john paul stevens did not allow hardship to slow him down. instead, he excelled in the studies at the university of chicago. shortly after earning a b. a. in english at the university of chicago, justice stevens enlisted in the navy and served as a code breaker during world war ii for which he was awarded a bronze star. after the work, he attended

northwestern law school with grants from the g.i. bill and graduated with the highest gpa in the law school's history. after completing clerkship supreme court justice rutledge, justice stevens return to chicago and joined a prominent law firm where he specialized in antitrust law. he gained the reputation as a talented antitrust lawyer and sue left the firm to start his own practice. he was invited to teach at the law schools of northwestern university and university chicago, he also helped several important positions, special counsel to his house of representatives and his attorney general's office. in 1970, president nixon appointed him to the u.s. court of appeals for the seventh circuit. as an appellate judge to continue to establish himself as an expert legal thinker. five years later he was elevated to the supreme court when justice william douglas step down.

justice stevens retired in 2010 at age 90 and has since written two books. he is redefining retirement, because he can't even in this quote retirement, remains a very active participant in the formation of supreme court decisions. and relevant to today's imposing a very numerous pinions of free speech as. so please welcome a great public servant, scholar and educator, justice john paul stevens. [applause]

>> president jordan, i'm sorry, judge jordan and president frank, thank you for that very kind introduction and that nice welcome. it's always a welcome to address an audience in this for. i have been there before and i've always enjoyed it, and to help i will enjoy it today. as i understand it we are celebrating the miami law schools program. the topic for discussion at this symposium is "the constitution on campus: do students shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates?" because the question mostly parrot the excerpt from the supreme court's opinion in

the student speech case, tinker versus des moines independent community school district, i in for that among the principal rights at issue are those protected by the first amendment. mr. justice ford is a pain to the court provide a categorical answer to the question, he wrote quote, first amendment rights applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment are available to teachers and students. it can hardly be argued that either students, that neither students -- sorry, that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech -- i'm having trouble with my speech here. expression at the schoolhouse

gate. but then rather surprisingly him instead of citing cases interpreting the first amendment, he continued quote, this has been the unmistakable holding of this court for almost 50 years. in meyer versus nebraska and cartels against iowa in 1923, this court in opinions by mr. justice reynolds held that due process clause of the 14th amendment prevented states from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students, statute to this effect, the court said, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, impaired. as the tinker case which at first seemed to find all that the first amendment rights actually suggest that our topic should be more encompassing. the answer to the question whether students have shed their

constitutional, shed the rights, necessary depends on what rights the students seek to exercise in a setting in which he does. particularly, no student has the right during a mathematics class to argue at length and without interruption about the importance of minimizing global warming. but it is equally clear that you could not be punished for expressing her views about that issue in response to a question in a science class. and even assuming that the five winners of the supreme court correctly held that the second amendment protects the citizens right to possess a handgun in his home, it does not follow that the right has been shed if the court concludes that it does not extend to carrying the weapon in public places such as a college campus. in short, it is necessary to determine the stroke of a given

right before deciding whether the right has been shed or impermissibly burdened in a school setting. presumably, students have the same fundamental right as those enjoyed by other members of the public. on at least two occasions, however, the majority of the court has drawn that principle into question, at least as it pertains to high school students. in both cases, i dissented from the majority's discussion decision limiting the constitutional rights of public schools, school students. in 1986 i dissented from chief justice burger's opinion for the court in bethel school district number 403 against fraser. in that case of washington high school student named matthew fraser, had given a speech at a school assembly dominating a

classmate for student elective office. his speech contained sexual innuendo and suggestive conduct. is there water somewhere? here we are. the school suspended him for violating a rule, prohibiting the use of obscene language on campus. thank you. i will try not to spill it. [laughter] >> a majority of the supreme court upheld the disciplinary action, although i agreed that fraser did not necessarily have a constitutional right to deliver his suggestive speech at

a school is in the. i thought it clear that he had not received adequate notice that he might be punished for doing so. the school agreed that fraser had violated through quote disruptive conduct, unquote. but in my view, that general prohibition was insufficient to notify fraser that his speech with a listed disciplinary consequences, particularly as there was no evidence that his speech had caused any material disruption to the school's educational activity. in light of the interest of free expression, protected by the first amendment and interest in fair procedure protected by the 14th amendment, i would've held that the constitution barred the schools punitive response to fraser's speech. in 2007 i dissented from chief justice roberts opinion and morse v. frederick.

in that case alaska high school student joseph frederick was disciplined for displaying a 14-foot banner bearing the puzzling phrase quote, bong hits for jesus. [laughter] you have to pause for a minute and reflect on the meaning of that. [laughter] that case was quite remarkable because the majority first included that frederick ambiguous message could reasonably be construed as advocating the use of illegal drugs, and then held that his message could be censored for that very reason. contrary to a mountain of residence, the majority determined that the first amendment did not merely prevent such a ship based on the content of the students message, but

more perversely that it permitted censorship based on disagreement with the speaker's viewpoint. the majority's opinion and morris limited protection for student speech in a manner that was totally unsupported by the court's first amendment jurisprudence. essentially moore's adopted a play could rule that student speech may be censored any time a public school official recently perceived that speech as advocating illegal drug use. as an initial matter i doubt whether fredrickson nonsense phrase quote bong hits for jesus, unquote, could be reasonably understood as advocating anything. [laughter] in any event, the principle of frederick's high school usurped the words as promoting marijuana

use, and message with which he disagreed. under first amendment doctrine viewpoint-based regulation is speech is presumptively unconstitutional. and advocacy of illegal conduct may be punished only when the advocacy is likely to incite lawless action. yet the majority ignored those basic first amendment principles at upheld fredricks punishment based on schools, school officials opposition to his message, or one possible interpretation of the message. before morse quote the police of third party regional or otherwise unquote never dictated which messages about 2% tribal -- prescriber will advocacy. that's my guess and. i see no reason why the subjective views of state officials should control the extent of first amendment

protection on campus when listeners perceptions do not determine the first amendment rights in other contexts. even if frederick had intended to promote marijuana use, moreover, there was no indication that his speech would have any persuasive influence on his classmates. as i noted in dissent, quote, most students do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate. and most students know dumb advocacy when they see. the notion that the message on this band would actually persuade the that the average student or even the dumbest ones to change their view, his or her behavior, is most implausible. the majority opinion and morse is particularly troublesome, given that the decision had already established the basic first amendment protection applied in public schools are in

tinker, several public school students in des moines, in des moines, iowa, plan to wear black armbands to express their opposition to the vietnam war. of the nine public school districts adopted the policy calling for the suspension of any student who refused to remove the armband. the students challenged the policy on first amendment grounds, and the court determined that the policy violated the constitution. the school district had argued that censorship was justified because it feared that the students discretion of the controversial and unpopular opinion would generate disturbance. but the court held that the school districts reported fear of disturbance can not justify the suppression of students speech. rather, the court explained, in order for public school officials to justify prohibition

of a ridiculous expression of opinion they must be able to show that the action quote was caught by something more than a new desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that would accompany an unpopular viewpoint. where there is no showing that the forbidden conduct would infringe on the rights of others or disrupt the school's education program, the censorship cannot be sustained. tinker stands for the proposition that nondisruptive student speech cannot be banned merely because it expresses a viewpoint. whether it is unpopular or contrary to the schools preferred message. i would have applauded this rule in the morse case told the frederick cannot be punished for displaying the banner. the tinker rule is not only consistent with first amendment doctrine but also as the important benefit of protecting students intellectual openness.

when the tinker students wore the black armbands in 1965, mainstream public opinion regarded opposition to the vietnam war as quote unpatriotic if not treason, unquote. as i noted in my morse dissent, the des moines school district was not unreasonable for fearing that the armbands might start an argument or cause a disturbance. nevertheless, the tinker court insisted that under the constitution we must take that risk. it is this sort of hazardous freedom, this kind of openness that is the basis of our national strength and of the independent and vigor of americans who grew up, who grew up and live in this relatively permissive -- society.

[laughter] i have lost something here. i don't know what. [laughter] okay. you may not remember what i said but you remember the events. [laughter] >> it seems to me that protecting this openness is no less important on campus and elsewhere in society. for even in high school able to permits only one pointed you to be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open discussion of countervailing views. ironically on the same day that the chief justice announced the decision upholding viewpoint-based regulation of student speech in morse county

also announced the judgment of the court in federal election commission versus wisconsin right to life. that case was a 5-4 decision that later paved the way for the courts most unfortunate decision in citizens united. in wisconsin right to life, the court declared that when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as unprotected advocacy quote we get the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship, unquote. students of the first amendment might wonder why that rule applies to corporate entities that wish to contribute unlimited sums to influence the elections for a public office but not to students who wish to express an unpopular point of view inside the schoolhouse case. thank you very much. [applause]

>> it's a pleasure to be here with all of you in with justice stevens. i had the pleasure to meet him for the first time which i set foot in the supreme court as a clerk, although i didn't have the honor of working for him. i clerked for some i think just as good. but always thought of him as one of the most deep come independent thinkers on the court. every time you saw the voting blocs go one way or another under difficult cases, justice stevens would have his own sort of individual way of telling was

the only other why this sort of gotten things badly wrong. and i think that sort of independence, i think endeared in the hearts of many who clerked on the court even those who didn't clerked for him. so he's been gracious enough to take questions, friendly once only, of course. so if anybody has oceans about the topic at justice stevens made his remarks about or maybe about something a little less related, we will be happy to try to get those questions to him and get them going in some way. but we need volunteers first. yes. >> i always love your descendents and, of course, -- [inaudible]

i was curious the opinion in the case that was most, i don't know, different but also interesting was justice thomas' dissent who said, justice thomas who said everyone in high school and elementary school has no rights under the first amendme amendment, ever. and the schoolhouse is for teachers to control. i was curious, you know, you would therefore all of the tinker, fraser, and then demaurice case. -- demaurice case. lie especially as one of the lower education level be okay with the idea that students at e these free speech rights in general and only justice thomas was one the other side all along arguing that teachers should be able to control their law school, i'm sorry, that was -- control the classroom was -- with complete in 20.

i was curious what all the test is always the support justice thomas tested to have these free speech rights? >> of course justice thomas is pretty unique i think in his approach to this issue. but he is a very independent thinker. he has his own ideas on a number of issues and is pretty consistent in his views and express it in a very intelligent way. and the question is why is nobody else on the court disagreed with that? of course in th in the morse cae there was disagreement among the justices, and he was of course the strongest on the side of prohibiting that particular manner. and i always thought, i always wonderewanted a thought to whate banner meant and never could figure it out.

i must say that i was sort of troubled by the notion that you construe the band anyway it's most likely to support discipline instead of it seemed to me the normal rule in the other direction. but of course that's not the only time i was a little unhappy about the way the case came out. >> you have always talked a lot about context matters of no matter what area of law you are dealing with. to take up on that question, do you think the first amendment rights of students differ, whether up or down depending on what grade they are in? like, which have a different view about first amendment rights of fourth or fifth graders that high school students are college students? >> well, i don't really know. that's a very interesting question. it's kind of hard to imagine some for the greater have a first amendment right that makes

an objection to the curriculum or something like that, but they might. >> they are posting on social media these days left and right, so you never know. >> you ought at least understand what they are saying before you respond with discipline. >> yes. >> thank you so much for speaking with us today, and for your remarks. specifically jumping off the point of so many students posting on social media. the student who created this inane banter in morse, he delivered his speech, delivered is content just off campus. one of the more common types of off campus speech these days is cyber off campus speech for cyber harassment. where students may not be used, may not be using a school computer. they may be at home but they may use that computer to target

students they know from school. based on these series of opinions that the court has offered, some u.n. the dissent on, what do you think, what you think is the extent of the schools power to regulate off campus cyber harassment that affects the campus, nonetheless? >> well, that is a very interesting question that i haven't considered. but i suppose off campus speech would be pretty much like the speech from a member of the general public. and if it did some harm, i suppose there could be situations in which one could either respond effectively or try to suppress the speech. but i don't see why the person's status as a student or a nonstudent would affect the analysis.

>> switch over to the other si side. >> at universities these days, both private and public, the issue is often not the ability to speak but rather that universities desire or needs to manage the company of speech. and the notion of fairness to the speech of others, the controversies we have seen over speech codes, how far do you think the universities management, rights and needs should extend over the manner and extent of conflictual speech on the campus speak with you are talking about content-based management or procedural management? >> it's sometimes hard to separate those, of course, but it is, i'm not in the administration of the

university, but the universities to have to confront both the groups that can be hostile towards each other or demand a kind of safety and comfort and security that other students may find trenches on their abilities to speak. these are difficulties that universities, private and public, seemed be facing today, more than the kind of high school level issues. but rather student-student relations involving speech on campuses. >> i think you've given an adequate answer that may take a little time, but it seems to me you have to know what the particular dispute is that the students are talking about in any city. you have to determine where the student is being, disagreement

occurs, not just what they have to say. and, of course, there are limits on what one can say in class, but not apply to the public arena. so i think it's difficult for me to isolate the precise issue where the disagreement arises. but it's like any other large institution. you certainly have to have rules to control behavior. you can't do anything you want in any area, but, i'm not quite sure how i can make it more specific than that. >> justice stevens, thank you very much for coming to our university and giving us this opportunity. and judge jordan, great to see you again. there's a case called the american insurance association

versus garmin d., at 2003 decision where justice souter wrote a 5-4 decision holding that the state of california did not have the authority to require global insurance companies like allianz and generally who defrauded holocaust victims out of billions of dollars of insurance policies. he held the state of telephone did not have the power to require customers to produce records about their treatment of holocaust victims during that period of time. and what was unusual about the decision, it was the first time he decided no precedent preempting a state law based upon the so-called policy of the executive branch. there was no statute, no constitutional provision, no treaty. and they were for the sense in that case. the dissent was written by justice ginsburg joined by you, just as deluded and justice

thomas. this was a case where, despite the lack of precedence, it seemed to me the majority went out of its way despite the context to put holocaust victims at a disadvantage after elected governments have done what they could within the regulatory authority to hold these, international company accountable based upon no precedent whatsoever, infringing traditional notions of federalism as well as separation of powers. it always struck me that the dissenters were probably not on the same side on the dissent very often. i've always, since been represented the holocaust survivor community and this decision was a devastating blow to help people whose rights have been infringed and who's elected officials were doing what they could to try to level the playing field in today's world,

it is the majority of the supreme court deal such a devastating blow to that class of people, and given the nature of how that vote went, i wanted to ask you if you have any recollection of that particular case, how many other times yourself in at the three dissenters together? again, you can comment on it having dealt with the victims of that atrocious decision. i always wanted to just ask person particularly on the dissenting side to reflect on that to the extent you're allowed to do so in public. >> i haven't thought about that case in a long time, but i do remember it was a close case because it was a 5-4 vote, and the author was a very fine judge, with whom i happen to disagree on that particular case you're i really have trouble recalling the specific issues in

the case, turn the tide on that. but i do remember that i was unhappy about the case, does that and quickly decided but i'm not sure i remember right now. >> thank you very much. >> dating back to student speech. so tinker actually said they were two reasons that schools can limit student speech. one of been much more developed than the other which is disrupt the educational process. but they also gave another reason, which is that it interferes with the rights of other students. >> interfered with -- >> the rights of other students. so schools get disciplined students if their speech interfered with the rights of other students. and i was just wondering how you would develop that particular line of tinker, what kinds of speech be think would fall under that? in particular, would that cover

sort of degrading, demeaning, sort of hateful speech targeting people based on a protected characteristic like sexual orientation or race? >> i may not get the thrust of your question but i have difficulty understanding how allowing students to wear armbands would have interfered with the rights of other students. >> i think what she's going to ask -- >> clearly, tinker, the armbands did not. so my question is, what kinds of speech might interfere? what come in your mind, what would you include undisputed that could be regulated because it interfered with the rights of other students? >> in other words, is there some student speech that could interfere with the rights of other students? and on that basis could be

curtailed, discipline, et cete et cetera. >> as in any context is the speaker makes too much noise and uses all the time for itself, doesn't allow other speakers to have opportunity to express their own views, speech and interview -- interfere with other speech. i don't think the mere fact that people wearing the armband expressed a point of view that actually frustrates the opposition speech in that case. >> i think part of it also depends on how you define the rights of those were sort of bothered or infringed upon by the speech. is the right to not hear something, or does it go deeper than that? how far can the school administration decide that it can make policy choices about

that sort of language? >> certainly they would have to allow those who disagreed with the speech express their own points of view. but equally unobtrusive way. i would think. >> thank you for taking my question. >> wait for the mic. >> thank you for taking my question. it's about morse. in your dissent in morrison, you know did that the court, that the majority should be cautious against trading special circumstances limiting speech regarding just drugs or alcohol in general. ..

the way that it is applied to a broad embarrassment. >> i will try. [laughter] >> his question is, i think, correct me if i am wrong, if the country as a whole shifts the news about marijuana being illegal and marijuana users decriminalized in some way, shape or form, how will morse be applied in a sort of worldcom in that other circumstance? >> you are asking me to tell how the chief justice -- i didn't agree with the chief justice. [laughter] that i supposed it would depend on how he interpreted with the

new banners that. if it approves another drug, that's prohibited to. it is a school policy. the majority is that the other school policy favor or disfavor. if you agree with the school policy unit may well be wanted. if you disagree, you better be careful. i think that's the rule. >> and flipping the legality of marijuana may not solve any problems because this marijuana is a cash crop in the state, opposing it may be against the use of those who bear some benefit from the state. >> good afternoon. i want your opinion on political correctness in the way that is

coming about in america and everything can be construed as some and that is not the way it was supposed to be met. thank you. >> any general thoughts on political correctness. in the topic of free speech, whether we become too attuned to what might offend him enough in public discourse. >> i do not get the impression that people are terribly afraid with some of their speeches, which is okay. but the big omission that occurs to me is second hand i don't watch very many of them come in the omission of any intelligible discussion about important issues. you wouldn't even know if that was an important matter to be going on now.

>> just wait. >> my question is about speech with regards to campuses that are little different from high school. as you alluded to earlier, fourth-graders, elementary school and middle-school. it seems that we are more of a community on college campuses. so if a student does some income of around in some of the two situations in the missouri situation would be football team or at yell where i believe some administration are staff members put on samaras and there is a huge protest. do the students have the right -- had this dude is beach gone too far where the students each have a set did the employment of administration or

faculty, where faculty hasn't necessarily done anything wrong. specifically. >> i guess his concern is that individuals on a college can't seal the day are offended, aggrieved, attacked by certain types as beach, whether or not the institution's failure for the failure of certain administrators to take action to prevent that continuing allows the university to take punitive action against those people who were in charge. so if a sentence due to does something that is offensive to another set of an administration is enough being likes of dave go to it, whether or not those you think are proper grounds to take administrative action against those individuals.

[inaudible] >> you will graciously pass. >> it is such an honor to share with you today. thank you for speaking out today. [inaudible] -- so my question picks up on the person's question from the front another comments that were made. but if we analyze beach and threat by students against others did it individually and as members of a gender or a class come in the context of title ix and title ix's promise and guarantee of equal access to

educational opportunities and look at how a at yell when fraternity members surrounded the old lorimer freshman girls lived, chanting no means yes, yes means anal at night. this is taken very by students who perceive that as a threat in the context yale and action in the report of sexual missile hit that might well come up during this conference. they're really thinking about when students with our meek statement that really might be in wrenching unequal access to to educational opportunities of other student, making sexual threats against women. >> in the context of title ix of the constitution?

do-not-call it a appear that's what we thought about today. >> those two things are different in the way courts deal with them. >> in the context of title ix as schools and campuses and poor constitutional values so they won't be directly applicable, but we import the value to the con petitioner campuses. >> i think what she is trying to ask is a very deep and difficult question about how foreign title ix should go in and protect individuals on campus and give them the promise of an equal education when speech by others come if freshly speech by others who may be seen in a position of power or authority prevents the vic dems, for lack of a better term, from having any low educational opportunity.

>> i have to confess i have not that rude. i can't immediately come up with a simple answer. the question is that sums due to prevent other student of having an opportunity to get an education, that should be in some way to oppose the moratorium allowing all people to have a chance to get an education. certainly that true you should not let somebody drown out, the opposing points of view. i am actually not sure i financed during any specific controversy. i guess the best advice i could give this you have to understand the fact very thoroughly before

you try doing it there and let the sites have an opportunity to ask why and why they are saying what they are and what they are trained to do. you should not suppress all of the speech he because it may cause disagreement or affliction as you well know good >> i think we are out of time. i want to thank on behalf of the whole university of miami community, all of you for coming here and obviously just as stevens for giving up his time in gracing us with his remarks. we really do appreciate it. >> thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> and we take you live here on the stand to two downtown before a conversation with the new director of voice for america, amanda bennett. she started in the position two weeks ago. this is hosted by the university of southern california annenberg center and the moderator will be adam clayton powell the third who is currently the president of the public diplomacy count to let usc. after remarks by amanda bennett, there's a q&a scheduled with the audience. [inaudible conversations]

>> there could always be two ways of doing things. welcome to newcomers and welcome also to those watching online and those watching on the seas and television. i miss adam powell. and the president of the public diplomacy count will deny them the director of washington programs for the usc center adjudication leadership and eight. there is a green light on. [inaudible] we are hosted -- our guest today is amanda bennett, new director of the voice of america.

she is a long and distinguished journalistic career, i offer for observers to program species won two pulitzer prizes and the one in oregonian and the second at "the wall street journal." what she said two weeks ago when she was sworn in as we do have to change. we must change. we need to change in a big way. so change is coming. changes here. amanda bennett. >> let's just test the technology before his start. is this not working? is everybody hearing me? that is terrific. okay, thank you. thank you very much, add a another one for coming here. i look out in the audience to see all kinds of friends and colleagues out here. i appreciate your coming and i can thank you all for being here, so i will single out one

person from the voice of america, alan heil has great history of voice of america kept me from making an error in the speech i'm about to make. i need to think of right now. second, i like to knowledge my predecessor, david and sarah who has been as helpful and warm to me as any human can be. i would like everyone to acknowledge david who is now at the atlantic council. as adams has come if you want to know my biography, flip the page over and read it yourself. i would like to tell you a couple things you might not know because i am of an age that i was part of a movement that cheap airfares and curiosity about the world said all of us sat around the globe.

in a migration that i don't think it ever happens in the united states before when it was in this is needed with the war. as a result of this, i was an exchange student in the philippines. when i graduated from college, i worked in paris taking care six children into bulldogs. i spent the early years of my career in canada and unless any of you have any misunderstanding , canada with nine and is now way more of a foreign country than any of us acknowledge. later have is the second "wall street journal" course on it in china at his time in the newly opened country was most definitely a foreign country. since then i worked at five different organizations and i have the really good luck to be there when nearly all of them were at their peak of their journalistic power and reach an although known for their serious dose of integrity principles.

so for all this, i am way, way more of a journalist and a bit of not. as a matter of fact i'm going to say them all journalists coming of diplomat. many of you in this room who has followed list of america, led voice of america, worked for our way fairway more expert than i am at the diplomatic purpose of voice for america. i am here to say to you that we are very much more like than we are different and that great journalism is in fact great public diplomacy. so let me remind you briefly what happened with lay on the changes that have already come to voice of america. under the leadership of new ceo john lance being who is the ceo of the broadcast part of governors of which voa is the

largest part, we shifted to five strategic focus is. one is that will target our resources towards five specific geographic areas and issues that are vital to u.s. foreign policy. china, russia, iran, cuba and violent extremism wherever you find it in the globe. will accelerate a dramatic shift to digital and social media, emphasized the impact and hold ourselves accountable for success. enhance strategic cooperation across the five independent networks that make up the broadcast board and carry commission and acquire extra no content. not only do i completely agree with these goals, no to believe issues reflect in large measure the challenges felt by news organizations all around the world and are also being felt in side voa. cheer rating and cooperation.

these are hallmarks of the modern media scene. competition once ruled journalism because multimedia operations were competing for audience, fighting against each other to distinguish themselves, yet for more than a decade, news organizations have all realized they must share resource is in order to succeed. partnerships proliferate. nonprofit organizations partner with for-profit organizations. radius partner with printing tv and even as we say in recent way with the papers, the creation of a multi-organization, multiplatform, multi-country coalition to defend itself into a virtual investigation team. so it only makes sense in this environment we do our best to bend over backwards to collaborate with our partner organizations can the radio free

europe and the radio they showed him the office of cuban broadcasting. as for impact, what else has journalism been about in the last 4050 years ever since watergate, all media organizations, all journalists have striven to have an impact domestically to protect her children to eliminate abuse, to expose corruption, to expose inequities internationally to work to ask lane -- explained genocide, and human suffering wherever you find it. in the area of digital, just this morning i had the great pleasure to announce the that we will have our first deputy to voice of america in more than two decades. sandy sue barrell has just joined voice of america and she comes to less from a robust

media and digital background. she was critical to the newsroom's move to a digital first organization of the "washington post," reorganizing the entire news operation to support that goal and it drove than you started a stunned social sharing good she was the managing editor who learned how to use on different platforms to curate the combined content in order to reach different not answers. her aim will be to engage as many people around the world as possible, especially in places where there is no free press. we need to meet our audience is where they are. now i've saved the biggest issue from last, which is actually being the voice of america.

most american news organizations are already covering america, telling america the tory. they just don't realize that is what they are doing. we nd to cover foreign policy of course, that we also need to cover america. we need to cover america for the benefit of the people around the world we are trying to reach. and to do that, we need to use the amazing resources. we have most of them in my right down the street to create unique interesting news and to speak to the vital interests of the people we are trying to serve. so what does that mean? it doesn't surprise me at all but one of the most popular features of our russian service of the video of american political terms. little videos explaining what is

a soccer mom, what happens when you filibuster, what does canvassing mean and how about the bible belt. one of the most popular stories coming out of the russian service with that little feature on a 90-year-old california woman who was delivering her treats to her neighbors which within minutes of it being posted through 900 shares and comment, the comments being i wish we had that in our country. i love seeing the picture of the normal american society. how about other topics that are of great interest to the audience as we are trying to target. well, i don't know if it will surprise you as it surprised me to discover that iran is crazy french gritty realism. so we need to create a robust coverage of entrepreneurialism, which is the hallmark of our society to help connect the

ideas that connect silicon valley with the young entrepreneurs in a random html and want to know so much about that. these will be stories that appeal to people who aspire to have the kind for startup and success that you find coming on silicon valley and to many others around the world. how about american business. i don't think it's any accident when you think about what china is like now to realize that a rock star in china is warren buffett. so we need to beef up our coverage of america and is a an infinitely american philanthropy, which is probably the most robust event in the world and write about the zest topics, not justice features, but serious topics of interest to our audience around the world. we need to build up exciting, you'd need content that speaks about our assets in the united

state in ways that our audiences want to hear and can relate to. like education. from the wealthiest high officials child to the child of the poorest nigerian, rwandan, ugandan or tanzanian, every parent of those child realizes education is the key to their better life. we need to put our heads together to figure out ways to cover american education in ways that will speak to the hopes and desires. people are misled of other countries to get their faces lifted. cheap treatments, medical tourism. but they come to estimate come to us when they want to save their lives in the lives of their loved ones. our coverage of medical issues like zika and a bowl of split really does save lives and mix and in that coverage to coverage of medical advances, the cost

and availability of drugs can simply our knowledge of the best ways to keep our families healthy will help translate the things that are wonderful about this country to our audiences. in africa, in asia, in afghanistan there is a huge hunger for news than for information about women, about their education, about their business success, about their striving for independence, about the things that lead to their development and growth in the world economy and the forces holding them back. we need to devote our resources in our thinking to helping to explain and encourage that movement and that information and that knowledge. so we need to cover everything about america.

we need to cover the good and the bad as william harlan hill said in february 1942, just days after the beginning of our entry into world war ii. in the first voa broadcast as you know the news may be good, the news may be bad. we will tell you the truth. we will cover the country honestly and fairly. its troubles and shortcomings. but it won't be a fair picture unless they cover all the other things about america as well. its people, its energy for change as well as its force to resist change, its generosity as well as its greed, its hope equally with despair, striving for a just society as well as the failures to achieve it. there's an amazing amount of resources and passion and

commitment inside the cohen building and among our brave and dedicated course on around the world who face danger every day to bring nasa and the rest of the world for news of their struggles. i believe we can show the world the amazing things we can do and in doing that we can truly be the voice of america. thank you. [applause] al-anon sib checked myself the question. [laughter] >> please pray for the microphone and identify yourself. >> thank you area much for an excellent presentation. my name is greta morrison under retired foreign service public policy officer. thank you especially for talking about the various issues than subjects that the voice of

america is covering. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about the media because obviously the media a voice of america has changed a lot since 1942, with voa television and also digital media. if you could comment about that and how do you make the choices about which kind of media to use. thank you. >> be happy to answer the question. i need to make an unpaid political announced that, which is that it be persuasion brought me here at the end of my second week in the office. [laughter] i want to say i am here, i'm happy, but it's really not fair. but actually, you know, coming into the voice of america made me realize how much the struggle inside voice of america mirrored the struggle of news organizations all around the world.

there is very little that is unique about the process of moving from one technology to be added because you have the exact same issues i've tried to protect your legacy means that tradition at the same time moving as quickly as you can to new technology. this is a very difficult, very complicated and very sensitive balancing act. you can't say because all this group of people is moving to this news that we are going to throw away this kind. this is a subject that all media has grappled with for the last two decades and i don't think it's going to get any eve here because what we are finding is as soon as we get a big we are at the cutting edge of technology, a week later technology is moved. what we need to do is try and figure out how best to reach our audience is with news and information where they want it, how they want it and in the platform they want it and do the best we can at doing that and

that means becoming much more nimble and much more attuned to the way are audiences can do media. >> hi, my name is marie horowitz i used to work at -- [inaudible] >> my colleague he is >> way of others, too. you talked about about his information and mentioned nothing about culture or music or comedy or any other things which commercial lease or divide the voice of america worldwide and are very, very powerful. also a lot of success in music and other cultural expression didn't have you any plans for that are not on the cultural coverage that transcending cultural expression? >> i have to say i completely knowledge another part of the history of voice of america is a history of its culture a i