sacrosanct. and for china to develop the capacity to process the project the same way, even to succeed is worthwhile. i think that's hope. and i think he also wanted to get things done faster. i know he wants to get things done faster than what we are currently doing. we take about two or three years to get a project to our board for consideration and another six or seven years to implement it and i think their concerns around the world that that's not fast enough so he will be at least for the foreseeable future working in tandem with the bbb and the world bank and other ifi's using our procurement rules and regulations and our implementation of requirements and monitoring

arrangements and aib will develop the capacity i believe in a short time to do things the same way we do. then it's anyone's guess what happened. i think they're free at that point to sort of do things their own way, to improve upon what we've set in place and maybe to exceed what we are doingbut otherwise, to get into the marketplace some level of competition if you will . our resources are needed, sure, but i think the countries, our borrowers are going to start judging us according to our ability to get things done in ways that are responsible and efficient and that that, so i think the role of aib in response to your question has been positive to the environment and the infrastructure realm in that part of the world because it's introduced a new dynamic from what's been provided.

>> michael projects? i thought i sort of address that. it goes beyond financial and economic rates of return and doing things by the book but i think bankable refers to investment codes that are bankable to bankruptcy and other forms of protection. laws that people can relyupon . access to arbitration and reports in the ways that risk management committees in corporations and others that are thinking about investing in a place are okay with. everyone remembers the experience of 97 and more recently in 2008 when a lot of investors got bird and it's hard for them to carry the same projects to their boards today that they could then without lots of

assurances and i think everyone has to sort of of their game when it comes to the software related issues to these projects and when they're going to get approved . >> let's try it again, we have time for another round so let's try to get three or four here and then we will move over here. right up front? >> thank you for your patience. my question probably will expand on the two that were asked earlier. in the context of risk, is there any concern for the types of infrastructure investment that china is making across borders in countries that are probably vulnerable, especially when one has a critical infrastructure which normally like the united states do not

allow foreign governments to invest. not necessarily the chinese predecessor that's the investment in this infrastructure. the second question is on the bankable business, from the us and a number of projects, some investment banker economies would depend then i've looked at this number of participants to come out of africa and the countries and i know you researched and brought in a number of transaction incitements in recent years to help co-africa projects. now it seems to me that there needs to be some education on the us side as to what us private sector companies look for, investors look for. what incentivizesthem, that sort of thing because were looking at green screen projects in most cases . and oftentimes even as the united states, there's certain incentives the government would actually provide to investors here as

one could consider cross-border so other than the typical cross-border risk etc. that one has to look at among other things, i think there's a lot of education as to really what us investors are looking for and how even tax patient rights investors in the us. >> i'm going to try very quickly, we will go here to whitney and two more here and i will just ask the panel to make their responses, their concluding remarks andgo ahead and we will pick these two up . >> rolleston porter. it may be the case that we have an interesting moment to reflect on setting up multilateral institutions because we have the aib, we have a new development bank and we have the green climate fund. the aib, the initial concern was not enough focus on safeguards, the green climate fund seems to take the view that they have their own

safeguards but then they only work through intimate lending agencies and the world bank and asian development banks are good enough or have to be done twice or something which is going to lead to inefficiencies but again, that the un organization, it's not weighted voting and sort of a paralyzed board and so forth but what lessons can we learn here on these three startup institutions as we think about the development process? >> very quickly, i'll ask both of you just a very short question right here. >> joined maurice glover again, i'm going to put you on the spot, i apologize. you're doing great work through mackenzie but i'm also reading reports that mckenzie has been facilitating a illicit or shall we call it great money outside of some developing countries into tax havens. and is there conversation within mackenzie about consistency across border development?

>> last question right here. >> i'll try not to ask a zinger like that but roland curley, academy of arts and science. what i'm concerned about is that our field of international development as its fundamental rationale, as the elimination of the worst forms of poverty and now bank says that those under the poverty line are less than 10 percent and declining. so i'm wondering whether you see the need to bolster the rationale for development more towards the spirit of the sdg's of mutual interest, of creating growth for our own markets and whether there's more to what's going on in your work then is of domestic benefit as you

mentioned in the employment creation. that could lead to a broader justification. >> okay, one minute each, answer what you like, ignore what you like. >> so quickly on two of them, on power africa, the whole concept of the transaction advisors which is something that i introduced as the five or six of us put this together was based on my citibank experience where i felt like we had people who get up every morning and to sleep every night just thinking about how do they get the deal done and that's the concept that applies when you're in the minority partner and of course, the country in some cases do not have the standards or the processes of loss or whatever it might be in some cases to facilitate the flow of private capital and that sort

of what private sector was telling us they needed. right? yet they want some risk mitigation and capital to mitigate risk.yes, they want investment but they also want the engagement of us ambassadors and us senior able as well as these people on the ground to be working with the government to make the changes necessary so that some modest portion of that huge wall capital that's sitting out there in some cases at negative interest rates but is looking for a return. i agree on that part of the transaction advisors and all the different agencies involved from the us government side are about. and that i would say to bob's question, i don't think the us government has a policy per se about the point that you raise. my personal opinion is that all the development agencies and banks aside from the humanitarian function are to

be working themselves out of a job so we make progress on these extreme poverty and sdg banks and then at that point, let the countries do it for themselves. that's why drm is there and let us go out of business as we've done in dozens of countries already area graduation. >> on the request you raise about mckenzie, first mckenzie's social initiative is an ngo that is not directly part of mackenzie so i may not have all the information about that but i think you're talking about this investment group that is also somewhat a separate part from mckinsey itself. i think the article that came out in the financial times didn't have all the facts and i think made more of a link that is actually there but i honestly can't answer all the information, i'd be happy to

provide you with the names if you want to get more information about some of them area feel very comfortable that the business is being transacted in a fair transparent way that is not abusing developing country money in any way so and also, on your question, i agree i think that you should be thinking about putting ourselves out of business and when i was a kid we had the opportunity to see several countries that graduated if you will and became self-sufficient and that really should be our job. i also think more and more companies that we worked with , particularly multinational companies, global companies that we are seeing that their future revenues were going to come from emerging markets really started thinking in very different ways about their responsibilities to the countries in which they were hoping to have future markets and it was also a way of

being able to talk about how american jobs are being created because as they were actually doing things that made a difference to develop those communities, they were actually building their businesses so i think we can make the case for how continuing to invest in developments goals will continue to also enable businesses, american businesses to grow as they move more and more into emerging markets. >> not going to get in the way of one cherub three quick points. yours, i spent 33 years in development and i know how much our assistance is appreciated. in the field. it still is. and for my part, i have, i can't wait to get out of bed in the morning every day to be working on this area. one, two, since coming back

to washington a few years ago i'm just amazed with the debate that takes place in this town when it comes to development on a daily basis. there are more seminars and roundtables and things like this that it's just providing constant feedback with policymakers and planners as to what's needed. i think we're pretty good at making course corrections and adjustments so we remain relevant. and third, this is a related point, i'd just like to acknowledge the efforts of scott and the center for development in supporting a proposal by add last year to merge our concessional and ordinary capital resources which allows us to boost our support for development by 50 percent in the beginning next year. were talking 50 percent more loans and 70 percent more grants read that's a fair amount of financial engineering involved, it was cost free to our donors and with things like that that are still possible to be

done, i just think that we're making it easy for donors to support us area i hope there is a whole lot of questioning anywhere about our ability to do what's necessary to help out. thanks. >> and please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] thank you all very much and thank you panel for a wonderful discussion. on the topic they left us with a lot of optimism and three quick points before we leave, thank you all of you for staying and are offering your respect and being conscientious with their good questions. we want to put patients and i want to say thanks again to our sponsors, banks holding and soros fund management here as well as imf partners and obviously our secretary

of staff out there really this program together.and finally, we do have our reception right outside if you are willing to stay for a little bit of discussion, i hope to hear from you and talk a little bit more, thank you very much. [applause] defense secretary ashton carter today lifted the ban on transgender servicemembers in the military. we will have his briefing with the announcement at about 6:20 eastern time onour companion network , c-span.

jim in half, a member of the senate armed services committee released a statement on the announcement saying in part, our military is facing a story readiness shortfalls, putting our servicemembers lives at greater risk, addressing this crisis should be the sole focus of the obama administration but instead they continue to be more interested in forcing their social agenda through the dod. i believe this policy should be put on hold until the dod thoroughly answers questions from congress on how such change will impact the readiness of our military. again, that from senator jim inhofe. the u.s. house is planning to vote on gun legislation next week. roll call will include a provision to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns. members will also vote on a mental health bill. this is reportedly from house speaker paul ryan while on a

conference call with gop lawmakers today. roll call writing that house gop leaders are considering their options on how to proceed. if democrats decide to continue their protest over gun control. ted bertram of fox news ending this week, unclear if perspective on terrorism votes would quell dems protest efforts on the floor area democrats have said they would stop if they get a vote. we will have live coverage of all the houseaction on our companionnetwork , c-span when members return july 5 . this fourth of july weekend, book tv as four days of nonfiction books and authors on c-span2. on friday starting at 9:30 am eastern, book tv features an interview with california senator barbara boxer discussing her political career. former pro basketball player kareem abdul-jabbar weighs in on current political issues and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on his life and politics.

saturday at 10 pm eastern on afterwards, science writer nathaniel holt discusses her book rise of the rocket girls, women who propelled us from missiles to the moon to mars in which she chronicles an elite group of women and their contributions to rocket design, space exploration and the first american satellite. he is interviewed by lisa rand . >> in the beginning they get up get a lot of trajectory so they calculated the potential of different rocket propellants and they did trajectories for many of the early missiles, they worked on cope corporal and sergeant and then things changed area when the space race happened and when nasa was formed and then these women's roles began changing. they ended up becoming the last first computer programmers and had these incredibly long careers at nasa. 40, 50 years, one of them still works at nasa today. next on sunday, in depth is

alive with author and documentary filmmaker sebastian younger who will take your calls, text and email questions from noon until 3 pm eastern discussing his latest book, tried: on homecoming and belonging. mister younger is also the author of war, adept in belmont. fire and the perfect storm. at 9 pm eastern, part two of a special two-part two and a interview with former public interest lawyerand politician mark green , author of bright infinite future: a generational memoir on the progressive rise and on monday at 2:30 p.m. eastern, book tv tours the vivian g harsh collection, the largest african-american history and literature collection in the midwest. house at the chicago public libraries woodland regional branch. for the complete schedule, go to booktv.org. >> homeland security secretary jeh johnson

testified about his department's counterterrorism efforts and recent terrorist attacks including the mass shooting in orlando florida. we will also see a group of protesters interrupted over the obama in ministrations deportation policies. on the senate judiciary committee, this is 2 and a half hours. >> we were going to open with the executive session but we don't have a quorum so i'm going to start the hearing, i guess now we are just starting at pretty much on

time. and there's some things going on that secretary johnson will tell us about that may interfere with our hearing here. but i'm going to start the hearing and because of those circumstances, i think i'm going to put most of my statement in the record but let me describe what i was up to. i had several instances of where i think that we haven't protected our country adequately, i've got several examples. everybody will recognize the name of kate steinle as an example of where immigration laws haven't been adequately carried out and our country is in danger. and some of my analysis of that and where i think there's some shortcomings within the administration and

this hearing is an oversight hearing that we will get into some of these details but because of the present situation i think i'm going to put my statement in the record, i'll turn now to senator leahy. >> thank you very much mister chairman and i'm glad that to have secretary johnson back to the committee. i think the hearing is about security and the nation is timely. people of the lgbt nightclub in orlando, it's a national tragedy. mass shootings around the country, and office in san bernardino. at planned parenthood clinic in colorado springs. the historic mother and annual church in charleston. a jewish community center in kansas city. a sick temple in oak creek.

an elementary school in newtown. we need to take action to keep this country safe, we need to do it now, we know we can have it as we did in oklahoma city. we saw with one of the worst mass killings in our country. so if we focus on homeland security, we have to look at what all these acts of domestic terrorism have done. many have said to the majority of american people, we've got to toughen our gun laws. they want to know that congress is finally doing something to keep guns out of the hands ofcriminals. and suspected terrorists . have universal background checks, the same kind of background check i have to go through if i go to a gun store in vermont but have universal background checks for gun shows and elsewhere so people can use the internet or gun shows to evade background checks. we need to strengthen our

laws, go after firearm manufacturers and operators who purchase firearms for drug cartels or other criminal gangs. the department of homeland security, department of justice at the fbi need more funding for those acts of terrorism and hate. that shouldn't be a very controversial thing. another step we should take is finally pass comprehensive immigration reform. we did that here in the senate three years ago. the house does not want to bring it up even though they have the votes because it would somehow violate the dennis hester. i don't think that's an excuse to not have immigration reform that brings us out of the shadows and millions of people came here for a better life. it improves a national security, we know who is here.

but also we are safer when we are united. earlier this week, the committee received divisive testimony from witnesses who casts suspicion on the patriotic muslim americans includingtwo members of congress . i expect some of these same extreme voices will use the recent bombing in istanbul to congratulate themselves for their position. but make no mistake, no one should congratulate themselves when there is an act of terror and rhetoric doesn't make us safer. it doesn't make us safer to cast suspicion on our neighbors and fellow citizens because they belong to different religions or ethnic or racial groups. it doesn't make us safer to talk about building walls on our borders. it doesn't make us safer to call for a muslim band or to suggest terrorist sympathizers have infiltrated the administration or to insinuate that all muslim americans are somehow complicit in the orlando act,

these statements are not only wrong, they actually create a greater problem. they undermine the security of this country and feed right into the warped narrative of groups like isis and al qaeda. they undermine the safety of the muslim american community which is facing a dramatic increase in hate crimes over the past year so let's stop the scapegoating, fear mongering, the divisive proposals. we all want to keep our nation strong but let's know that sometimes the reality makes a lot more sense than the rhetoric and i put my full statement in the record. >> can you affirm the position of the party and promised to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i thank you very much for coming. everybody knows that jeh

johnson is secretary of homeland security. i've introduced him several times, i won't repeat that. that you very much and you proceed accordingly with your testimony. >> thank you chairman. senator leahy, members of this committee, i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. to have my prepared statement read i will say just a few things. for the record here this morning, first we do have as reflected on the news and unfolding situation atandrews airbase . which may require that i take a break on this session. and i hope you won't mind if i need to do that, chairman. second, let me say a few words about what happened in istanbul two days ago. and what we know at this point. so far, based on what we know, it appears there were three attackers.

three explosions. there are reports out of turkey today about the possible identity of these three attackers. we don't have confirmation yet of their nationality or their names. 44 killed including the attackers and some 256 injured. one us citizen who suffered i understand minor injuries. this has hallmarks of an attack by isis although there's been no claim of responsibility last time i looked. here in the homeland, since brussels we have enhanced security at airports around the nation, since the brussels attack in march, our tsa piper teams have been more visible at airports and transit centers generally. the american public should

expect to see this july 4 weekend and enhanced security presence at airports, train stations and other transit centers across the country by tsa and state and local law enforcement as well as security personnel . we have enhanced aviation security over the last two years as i've been secretary. as i said last month, we will not shortcut aviation security in response to increased travel volume. or longer wait times. i'm happy to report that with the support and approval of congress, we have repro program funds to invert a number of tso's from part-time to full-time to expedite the hiring of additional tsa's and additional tsa officers and to make other surges in resources so that wait times today at airports nationwide

have been reduced. 99 percent of the traveling public now has a wait time of 30 minutes or less nationwide. 93 percent of the traveling public today as a wait time of about 15 minutes or less. it will focus on the nation's busiest airports to ensure we don't have a repeat of some of the things we saw around the memorial day weekend and the month of may.in general, my caution is that when it comes to public places and public events, we should not focus our attention on things like airports to the exclusion of other public places, public events. as we said international terrorism advisory system within, issue just about two weeks ago, we are concerned and focused generally on public events and public places across the nation and in general, we continue to

encourage the public to travel, to associate, to celebrate the holidays, celebrate the july 4 holiday, continue to go to public events but be aware and be vigilant. public awareness and public vigilance can and does make a difference in terms of detecting possible terrorist plots, terrorist activity. so with those comments, i will look forward to your question, i'll be happy to answer any questions you have. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will have ... i have senate seven minute rounds for questions. last week the supreme court affirmed the decision on the fifth circuit that keeps in place a nationwide injunction on the presidency executive action to effectively legalize millions of

undocumented immigrants. i'd like a commitment from you today that the administration will not implement any administrative workaround ofthe supreme court decision area . >> chairman, the supreme court by equally divided vote affirmed the decision of the fifth circuit and we intend to abide by that injunction. >> as i said in my opening statement, although i didn't read the entire statement, kate steinle was killed in san francisco one year ago today and last year, not that nothing noticeable has changed. more american families are suffering because love ones have been hurt or killed by criminal immigrants since san francisco is the sanctuary of crucifixion and the stateof changing their ways last month , the board providers upheld the sanctuary policies for people in the country

while eating our laws. you feel you have enough tools in your arsenal to go after sanctuary jurisdictions? >> i'd like to see more cooperation from counties and cities. [inaudible conversation] [yelling] not on more deportation. not one more deportation. not one more deportation.

>> would you proceed or did you finish? go stand in recess. [inaudible conversation] >>.

[inaudible conversation] this office has blood on their hands. and illegal deportation. jeh johnson, you have bloodon your hands . [inaudible]

>> if there is any intention anybody else has if they want to stand up and be removed instead of starting the meeting again ... >>. [inaudible] >> if anybody else wants to exercise their right to speak, do it now please. >> okay. secretary johnson, i don't know whether you completed the answer to my question but if you would proceed i'd appreciate it. >> yes. in general i'd like to see more cooperation from various counties and cities in terms of working with us on

immigration enforcement. we discontinued the secure communities program in 2014. because it wasn't working. there were some 14,000 dictators by our immigration enforcement personnel that were not acted upon in a number of counties and cities across the country. we replaced it with a priority enforcement program which i believe, which i believe solves the political and legal controversy that we were seeing of the 25 counties that were the most resistant to our retainers, 17 of those 25 now working with us again. on the enforcement of our immigration priority. that is a good thing. for public safety. we continueto have these conversations with a number of jurisdictions . i will note that i have had conversations with city officials in philadelphia and in cook county illinois

without success so far. and i have urged a number of cities and counties that it's for the benefit of public safety that dangerous criminals not be released who are removable so that our immigration enforcement personnel have to go find them again on the streets and round them up and put them in deportation proceedings. i prefer cooperation in this regard as i've said of the 25 jurisdictions that were resisting us before, the largest ones, 17 are now working with us again. this is a work in progress and there are those where we need to continue to make progress. >> i think in the final analysis, i'm going to go with senator leahy, that what you just told us talking to some cities and not getting cooperation and then 17 cities where you say you are getting cooperation that the

situation was sanctuary cities is an illegal situation and violation of federal law and i think that's a very good reason why a couple weeks from now or maybe next week even we will have a vote on senator toomey's amendment in regard to sanctuary cities and i hope that people will take this testimony we've had here where the secretary saysin some cases is program works and in some cases it doesn't . and particularly in chicago and new york cityas an example , the need for that legislation, senator leahy. >> thank you. you know, when you talk about executive orders, we had the supreme court couldn't reach a decision in us texas, that's one of the reasons we now have a quandary. between expandingb, but it

would have been decided one way or the other if we had had the night number in the supreme court whereas for the first time in history, the senate has refused to do its job and hold a hearing and vote on a supreme court nominee. to its credit, the president did involve his oval office and nominate somebody but ... as you said, the expanded dacca policy was the focus with limited immigration enforcement resources, we don't have unlimited resources. it at most, it poses a threat to public safety. i mention that only because again, the opportunity we lost in not getting a full

immigration bill through. we republicans and democrats came together in the senate and by almost a 2 to 1 margin with 68 votes, we passed out of the senate major immigration bill and months and months and hundreds of hours of work to get it. there were by all accounts enough votes to pass it in the house. but the republican leadership at the time said it would have violated the dennis asked her to rule and lord knows we must dowhatever dennis has to rule is . and so it never got past. i would hope that people would go back and make a real effort to pass real, not finger-pointing but real immigration laws as we did in

the reagan administration and bush administration. now, secretary johnson, you have to protect us all threats of all kinds. there's a significant security vulnerability that terrorists can readily obtain powerful firearms and this is being exploited by those who would cause us harm. in my judgment, the answer is yes, senator. i believe that sensible gun control consistent with the second amendment and consistent with a responsible gun owners right to own a gun is a matter of homeland security. you look at what happened in orlando, you look at what happened in san bernardino, the weapons used their by what appeared to have been isil inspired terrorists, i believe that we should face

the fact that we need to make it harder for terrorists to get a gun in this country. and i know that there is legislation and the legislative ideas pending in this congress to do exactly that. i hope we can find a way consistent with the second amendment to make it harder for terrorists to buy a gun in this country.it is a weapon of an instrument of terrorism and those determined to committerrorist acts on our homeland are taking advantage of that . so i believe it's a matter of homeland security that we address this . >> in fact, i'm told at least one al qaeda member has pointed to the us gun show loophole to encourage their sympathizers to acquire and use firearms. from your experience, is it pretty clear that terrorists

and other parts of the world are aware of our week gun laws? >> i believethey are and i've read such literature that you referred to as recently as this week .and we know from past practice that the literature put out by al qaeda and isil that is disseminated in this country is acted upon and followed. they are sad examples of that. >> i've spoken before on the floor and all at the rise of rhetoric that seems to demonize and casts suspicion on the muslim american community. i am still touched, so touched by a note that my wife received from a friend

in his position, a muslim in another country saying how she and her family were praying for the people in florida. during the month of ramadan. and they were in their prayers because of this terrible, terrible event. now, you work closely with the muslim american community and many patriotic muslim americans in your vacancy. this kind of anti-muslim rhetoric doesn't make us safer or less safe area. >> senator, you are correct that i have spent a lot of time with american muslim communities. in major metropolitan areas across this country. to build bridges to these communities because i think it is a homeland security imperative that we do so, to encourage members of muslim communities in particular that if they see something, say something. if they see someone self radicalizing, turning to violence, it is imperative

that they inform somebody in law enforcement or a community leader perhaps. i think that rhetoric, that vilifies muslim communities, rhetoric that vilifies a religion is contrary to those efforts and i've said so publicly treated in the past, i think that given the nature of the existing threats to our homeland security which involves homegrown, home born extremists, it is essential that we keep at our cep efforts. >> thank you. my last question and we've heard the expressions here by people who are here in the audience, i see and hear some of the stories of families that are undergoing violence in central america, trying to get their children out of there before they are forced into a gang or murdered . or rate, or sexually trafficked. and we see a number of raids

targeting this community, high school students waiting at school, sometimes attending them for months at a time, sometimes solitary confinement. likely secretary, i think it's wrong to use these teenagers to send a message. i said i wish the house and not such and such attention to the has to rule that would allow the immigration bill to pass. but i think when you've done great work to build trust, i worry about some of these policies especially targeting youngsters that is going to push immigrants deeper into the shadows and it's not going to stop a parent who's trying to protect the life of their child from trying to flee the violence of some of our so-called allies in central america. that's just my opinion. >> secretary johnson would

you please stay where you are, were going to recess a hearing in just a minute to do the executive session to order. we have 11 members present on today's agenda, we have one bill which will be held over in one nominee with right for a vote. miss right on, nominee for us attorney in the northern district of ohio and strongly supported by both senators workman and brown and i understand that we can then misread out now by voice old so turning to the agenda of s2 47, that will be held over and i believe that we can do us attorney by voice vote, there is a quorum here to those in favor of miss brenda owns combination to the us attorney for the northern district of iowa, signify by saying aye. opposed, say no.

>> i seem to have. the aye's you have it so she will be reported to the floor. the executive session is adjourned and we will now reconvene the hearing and i will call on senator sessions . >> thank you. thank you mister chairman. >> excuse me, chairman could i just say i always wanted to be a us attorney. it didn't work out that way. >> you are an assistant, isn't that correct? that's the best job, i've had both. >> it's the best public service job i've ever had x mister chairman, we need to understand where we are and the problem of the violence we are having today is not a product of the gun laws or in any significant way. we've had attacks in garland

texas, chattanooga, san bernardino, orlando, all in the last year. maybe 13 months. these are unusual attacks, now we had in europe and turkey. we have a serious problem here area no way to look around it, we need to confront it, talk about it honestly and deal with it. the amnesty bill that failed in the congress would have more than doubled the number of people who were given legal status in the country, created a very large permanent increase in legal immigration at a time when we don't have enough jobs for americans people here today, immigrants and nativeborn. we don't have that. wages in america have dropped since 1999, median household income by $4000. one of the reasons of that, for that is we have a loose labor market as a result of more workers and we've got jobs four. the american people didn't like the bill and it did not

pass go we've had multiple opportunities since that failure to tighten up and make our country more secure and not one thing of significance has happened. we've not even been able to pass the bill that would treat the exit entry visa system that's been on the books for a decade and has never been accomplished so the american people aren't happy. they have a right not to be happy. a great nation should have a lawful system of immigration that establishes who should enter and they should be able to come in in a reasonable and effective way but people who are not here lawfully should be removed and people who attempt to enter unlawfully should be deported. that's just the basics of the system and so when people say not one more deportation, what are they saying? they're saying that all you have to do is get into america unlawfully and you get to stay and you will never be removed and i was

disappointed that the former secretary of state recently in a debate said that nobody should be deported from america on the less they commit a terrorist act or a violent crime. that's just an open invitation to lawlessness so we've got a problem and i'm worried about it , i don't think this country is doing the right thing. i think president obama is taking extreme positions, taking extreme positions. mister johnson, you're in a difficult position. it's a huge agency you've got. you got a number of critically important departments and i have to say i remain concerned about the morality in the department. it started declining before you got there but it continues to decline every single year. according to the survey of the best places to work in federal government, that's the private group, homeland

security ranks 19th out of 19 major agencies. the employee viewpoints survey of the government data, when asked do they believe do leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment to the workforce, only 25 percent said yes. so i just think we've got a

where they were born, how they got here and a series of very rational questions so we have not received an answer. we've received an answer from the department of justice, partly answered their question which is a convicted 580 people of crimes, of terrorist -related crimes since 9/11 and the data it appears that they directed you or said you have the information on where they were born, what their citizenship status is, whether they were refugees or illegal entrants or what and you failed to give us that information. don't you think that information would be valuable to congress in assessing the problem and passing legislation that would be effective.

why haven't you give it and when will you give it? >> i'm happy to look in to correspondence you've addressed. i've read every letter i get a member of senate, a member of the house. we have as i'm sure you're aware some 90 committees and subcommittees of congress that exercise oversight jurisdiction over my department we have reduced the time it takes to respond to those letters by some 14 days on average. >> you said last august and we have three times written about it, the same letter . we finally the last letter, the fourth one went to the president of the united states and asked that he directed you to answer it so when can we get an answer to this question? >> i'm happy to look into the letters you sent me andme sure you receive a response . >> senator clover tried committee chairman, thank you for being here mister secretary. as you know, we've had a major issue in the twin

cities and in minnesota with extremist recruiting and a lot of this is either isil or before that elsa bob because dozens of indictments now, we had the first man killed in fighting with isil came from our state and our us attorney and the fbi have been aggressive working with local law enforcement, working with our somali community which we are very proud of, we have the biggest somali community in the country, there are dozens of police officers that have come out of that community and there are many ways to attack this and it's a multi-pronged approach i'm going after the base of vices where they are and iraq and syria and other places and of course going after this extremism at home and so my first question is just, i know that we talked about this several times but the dhs funding that came out of the appropriations bill this year, 50 million for countering violent extremism

just 10 million has been allocated for communities and where do you think the timetable is for that? i know there's been recent grads that have gone out, obviously we are focused on this out of our us attorney's office in minnesota . >> ...

>> i pressed our folks to know when it is that the money for this year will be made available. i'm told they should be made available in the next several weeks. this will be a first time, and i'd like to see that congress appropriate more money for cve in the future. 10 million is a good start, but 10 million nationwide for the third important effort in my judgment does not get us very far. and we do need more. about the congress will consider that for 17 and beyond. but the direct answer to your question is in the short term i know our people are working very, very hard to get this money available. >> thank you. i also know we issues of course with the tsa at the twin cities airport. we talked about this before the meeting and we appreciate that

tsa administrator coming out to minnesota on this specific issue but obviously a balance as we have seen in turkey just this week, a balance of security and also efficiency and sometimes they go hand in hand. i'm glad that you're focused on adding more of these dog teams which up with both security and efficiency. and i'll put some questions of this on the record. civilian refugee admissions, senator durbin and i submitted a letter bracelet asking what the status is of that. obviously, there's a major vetting process, we all know that, but at the same time we have made a commitment, the administration has, to bring in 10,000 syrian refugees which, compared to canada, even is as much of their dependable and what the status is about and how they had been admitted. >> as you noted, we have increased our commitment from

2000 last year to 10,000 this year. in terms of syrian refugees. we have also added security checks to the process, where they are warranted. with a search of resources and a lot of effort among our refugee personnel, and this at the same time we deal with central america and where did with the increased worldwide commitment of 85,000. >> i don't mean to interrupt. i completely understand what the numbers on the syrian refugees, i think we had, kind of thing, we had a couple thousand that had been, 1736, and i think that we stepped it up the last -- >> actually i think we're just a about cross the 5000 mark in terms of syrian refugees an approximate 5000 have been approved for resettlement and just not been resettled in the united states. at another five or 6000 have been conditionally approved

subject to those he projects. i believe we will make the 10,000. >> i appreciate that. my last question, i would like to thank you and the customs and border patrol teams who work with the commerce department to enforce penalties against foreign-skilled companies are dumping steel into our markets -- foreign steel -- their been about 13,000 workers now laid off because of illegal dumping from china. this week i led an effort with members of the u.s. senate steel caucus to send a letter to president obama and prime minister trudeau asking him to discuss this. canada is experiencing similar problems, and in minnesota we recently, because of the higher tariffs that have been assessed and some of the checking which is under your jurisdiction on the ships, we actually brought back a couple thousand workers are going back to work now that work for cleveland-cliffs.

we truly appreciate the efforts to union leaders and the president of cleveland-cliffs on the business side have both attributed this change to the fact that there's been more enforcement from the administration but we still have a lot on the way to go. i just want you to briefly comment on what's happening on your in with the steel dumping enforcement? >> i would have to get back to you on that. >> all right. >> sorry. >> thank you. we can do that in writing. i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. cbp hiring. as you know congress approved staffing level that is will an excess of what we have on the ground now. we are short about 950 officers. we were told, i had a meeting where we are trying to get to the bottom of why it's taking so long to hire some of these

folks, and told that for every 100 applications, every 100 applicants that apply, only one is hired. and a lot of people identify the polygraph that's taken for a lot of false positives and concern that one false positive is a scarlet letter for any employment opportunity that might come up both were in government. i know that there's an issue there. do you want to comment? >> well, i have asked our folks to take a hard look at exactly what you just said. does it really need to be the case that one false positive disqualifies you from federal service, federal law enforcement service? i'm aware of the statistics you cite, one in 100, and the length of time it takes to hire somebody for the border patrol, for cbp.

senator, as i'm sure you know we have searched our efforts to hiring hubs to aggressive recruitment among our military personnel, at military bases spent we did pass the veterans act. moving a little bit. >> i think we are closing the gap slowly i think we're turning the corner and closing the gap so that we can hire up to what is been appropriated and authorized. you are correct that we are currently i think 950 short, but ask cbp every time you see the senior leadership how are we doing on the hiring? are we making a difference? are we doing what we can? we seem to be closing the gap. but i do think that we are to take a hard look at whether we are shooting ourselves in the foot by this very lengthy, cumbersome process that it takes to recruit and hire people and get into all the bedding. bedding. >> you combine this with the high attrition rate, we would

have to i think accept 100,000 applications. we are not going to get even close to that. just to get to the number, 71 out of 100. so i would encourage you look at some options here and figure out how we can change the process because it's not working and we are severely understaffed at some of the ports of entry. a lot of people see the border as something that maybe we up to put a wall or something to stop illegal entries. certainly we have to have a secure border but in arizona, it's also the hub of commerce, and that commerce can't take place if we have too few agents there. in these ports of entry, as you know. we've made a lot of investment in infrastructure but if we don't have been staffed it doesn't do us much good. with regard to come let me talk

about the rodriguez decision in the ninth circuit that requires somebody who's been held in detention to be released. i have sent a letter on february 12, 2016, a back to me with some data. the numbers are staggering. for those criminal aliens released from detention, 35% we arrest rate at a 41% abstention rate. since that time the supreme court has agreed to give his case again. can you comment on that and can you commit to continuing to provide us with these numbers that will be helpful as we guide decisions here? because this is certainly unacceptable, 35%, 41% in abstention rate yet we are continue to let these people go. >> yes, we will provide the numbers. and yes i'm pleased that the supreme court granted cert in

the rodriguez case. i don't believe that, well, a six-month requirement on those prior to a final order of removal was making it very difficult for us to hold onto people and it was contributing to the number of releases of the number of criminal releases have gone down since i've been secretary year to year, the rodriguez case was very problematic for immigration enforcement personnel and i'm pleased the supreme court took cert. >> talk about the process for a minute with so-called otm sport other than mexicans who are apprehended at the border. it's a different case with children, we understand some of them are resettled in have to be handled differently. for those that are not children, we can't repatriate them back into mexico so another process has to take place. can you talk about the process a bit? there are reports there so we put on a bus at the border or

taken to the bus station and that go with just a request to have your in court with not much more than that. at some future date. and you talk about the process of? >> well, as you know, about a year and a half ago we expanded upon our family unit detention capability, and we set up a number frc's, mostly in texas, and that, too, is in litigation in los angeles. but i believe that expanding that capability was a good thing. if for no is a reason to process these individuals so we know they are and we can better assess who should be barred and you should not, if we can release them on conditions that have a reasonable likelihood of returning to court. i am concerned that we not just

simply take some of to the nearest bus station. and those apprehended at the border are a priority. and we've conducted a number of operations, interior enforcement of those who are apprehended at the border. it was controversial. a lot of people as you saw this morning don't like that, but we have to enforce the law consistent with our priorities and one of those is border security. i don't believe that we should send the message that if you come here you will not be sent back. i was personally in central america last month to deliver that message. i did two press conferences. and won there was a 60 news organizations to recover my remarks about how our borders were not open to illegal migration and that we're sending people back. i created flights of those

would've been repatriated to el salvador and honduras while i was down there. i'm pleased the number of apprehensions on the southwest border in june will look something like around 33,000, which is a decrease from a. i think may was about 40,000. may and june are typically the months of the seasonal increases. so we are going to continue at this. we are going to make people apprehended at the border priority along with those who are threats to public safety, and when we release people i want to make sure we are releasing them on conditions that will guarantee that the return to court when they are supposed to. we have some capability to hold onto people. right now i think our bed space is something like 36,000 which is a little higher than usual. but this, too, is an issue that

we have to wrestle with in litigation. there's a district court order that we appeal to the ninth circuit, makes it harder for us to manage frc's. don't know what the ninth circuit is going to do yet in the case and we will have to see. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary johnson, welcome back to the committee. before start i just want to join many of my colleagues in expressing our profound disappointment of the supreme court in the building to issue a final decision on the merits of the united states versus texas, the challenge to president obama's executive actions on immigration. in our view that challenge is without merit, and i was pleased to join 38 of my senate colleagues in signing an amicus brief explaining that the deferred action programs

represent a lawful exercise of the president's authority. unfortunately, the supreme court was made -- unable to answer the questions posed by the parties in litigation, and i should come to no surprise that the immigration case, just one of five of the cases in which the shortstaffed court is deadlocked, ending down 4-4 ties. into cases where the court was unable to reach consensus, essentially punted, sending cases back to the lower courts. but the legal uncertainty that will persist as a result of the courts of deadlock in the immigration case doesn't just underscore the need for the senate to fill the vacancies on the court bench. in this case the court's failure to reach a decision means that fear and uncertainty will continue to hang over the heads of millions of families living in our country right now.

families who came here seeking a better life. this split decision should serve as a reminder to all my colleagues and we must commit ourselves to fixing our broken immigration system. finishing the work that we started when the senate passed the comprehensive immigration reform in 2013. so we need to do our jobs in many different ways. i would like to start by focusing on how this uncertainty impacts children. as you know i have long been concerned about how our broken immigration system affects children. i introduced legislation called the help separated children act that would have laid down some basic protections for children in immigration proceedings. when the senate took up comprehensive immigration reform back in 2013, the bill was included as an amendment. passed unanimously. i wrote that bill in response to something that happened in worthington minnesota in 2006.

that's year i.c.e. carried out a series of raids that led to the arrest of about 1500 undocumented workers in six states. unfortunately, the raids also left many children, most of them citizens, without their parents and with no way to find them. one second grader in worthington came home from school to find his two year old brother alone, and his parents gone for the next week he cared for his two year old brother while his grandmother drove from texas, i believe, to meet them. that's unacceptable on its face, but we now understand that the fear and uncertainty confronted by the child can have lasting consequences. a growing body of researchers

show that children of undocumented immigrants are more likely to experience constant fear and anxiety, and as a result experienced mental health issues and emotional instability and to exhibit behavioral problems like anxiety, aggression and withdrawal. twice now i join my colleagues in expressing concern about enforcement actions targeting families from the northern triangle region in el salvador whack-a-mole and honduras. by large the mothers and children at a shooter fled and credible violence in their home countries and seems to be that the fear generated by the most recent series of raids could exacerbate the trauma that many of these kids have already experienced. secretary johnson, what steps can the department take as a matter of policy to limit the harm to children's mental and physical health? what steps are already being taken? >> let me answer it this way.

the priorities that we announced in november 2014 for immigration enforcement more sharply focused on threats to public safety and those apprehended at the border, border security, public safety, national security and border security. we are also encouraging our immigration enforcement supervisors in the field to exercise prosecutorial discretion when it comes to individuals they encounter. one of the bases for doing that is the family unit situation there so if taking somebody a way would lead a dependent or leave a child in jeopardy, that is something that i would hope and expect our immigration enforcement personnel, vacation refer to is 2006, but today i hope it's something that our

immigration enforcement personnel would take account of come and i would encourage them to do that. but going back to your original point, senator, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented in this country, and the president and i wanted to provide deferred action for an estimated 4 million or so who have been here for years who had kids who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, simply so we can account for these people. they are not going away, and give him an opportunity to be accounted for and to get on the books instead of working off the books, like we know they do, and we'll are disappointed in the court decision. and at some point it's going to be up to congress to wrestle with this issue. we have to account for these people. they are here. they are not going away.

contrary to the rhetoric of some come we are not going to deport a population of people the size of new york and chicago put together. we don't have the resources and it's not the best use of our taxpayer dollars. and so we have to account for these people, and given the opportunity to come for, submit to a background check and be accountable, who have families here, and it's my hope that at some point congress will finally take this up and deal with it in the legislative branch. we tried in the executive branch. my hope is congress will recognize this problem finally and deal with it. >> tried to give and 2013. i know i am out of time, mr. chairman. i just want to submit for the record a question about countering violent extremism, which i think was a bad name for that. and i think the choice of that name, we have a very vibrant

somalia american community, minnesota community, as senator klobuchar talked about and again i would like to continue talking with you about our approach on that. because i think that we need buy-in i this community and i think that there is some of the approaches have been counterproductive. i'm sorry to go over my time, mr. chairman. apologized to my colleagues. >> if i may. would actually don't use of the term cve in the field. it's an inside the beltway term but out in the community, i know -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you, mrthank you, mr. secr being here this sounds like a day is going to be even more difficult after you leave this committee. hopefully not too bad. i want to go back to border security.

in your professional opinion, would an open border, let's just tell border security to move on or keep a few counters there, be more helpful or less helpful to you keeping the homeland safe? >> and open border of? >> yeah. spent obviously a secure border helps to keep the homeland safe. >> and so now, i assumed as much by want to make sure because there's a small number but there are some people here who say that we should not have borders and that we should move freely between nations to our north and south. it would seem to me no one who is here and what their backgrounds are as a helpful piece of information for you to do your job. if we start talking about what a fully managed border looks like, what, in your penny, should we as a matter of congressional policy due to ease the pressure on the border, to make the

border security efforts easier? what do we do? i, for one, think that if we had a better job and did a better job cooperate with mexico and trying to seal their southern border, that's what example of how we take the pressure off of your job. can you think of other things we should be looking at and prioritizing to make it more successful? >> well, in fact, we have cooperated, worked in the spirit of cooperation with the mexicans to secure their southern border with the northern triangle. over the last two years or so, they have really stepped up those efforts and we've seen that reflected on our southern border in addition to what we are doing. i think the answer is more technology, more surveillance, more eyes on the border, and we

can always do a better job, i think, of identifying the hotspots and the trends. the intel but a gift from, i will speak candidly here. the intel that i get from central america very often is not that good in terms of emerging trends and would like to see us do a better job in terms of our intel collection capabilities of there. >> i think i've spoken with southern command, and i think some of the sources of intelligence would come from them. they seem to be sort of the last command that we think that as a priority but, in fact, if you look at 400,000 plus people who died of what's referred to as narcoterrorism, it seems like we've got to have people getting more that are situational awareness down there. i think one thing it would like to do when we start talking about securing the border, the rhetoric is that building the wall.

i don't think anybody here thinks we are going to build a 20-foot wall from one side of the mexican border to the other. can you talk a little bit about what a wall that gives us 90% situational awareness would look like in terms of technology and people? >> if i may let me just finish, after the prior question you asked. one of the things that we have built this off the arizona model our joint task forces for border security which we have deployed in the southeast and southwest, which i think have been a good thing because it brings to bear all the resources speak with local law enforcement? >> with components of my department. components of my department are better coordinate the we've asked for explicit congressional authorization to do that to remove some of the legal limitations that i've encountered in this effort. it's been 10 in various different pieces of legislation. we try to get this into the nda.

>> i want to just be clear. that was what is going to pass. is this intra-agency or interagency task forces how well are you working with other -- >> what i'm referring to is intra- >> to what extent are you going beyond that in terms of working within other federal agencies and local law enforcement? >> since i've been secretary and given my familiarity with the dod we have stepped up our relationship with both northern command and southern command. i worked with general kelly and his successor. and we are always interested in doing more with the department of justice old in terms of border security and dealing with our counter-narcotics mission. >> in the seven minute you always wonder how you're going to use it all and then it evaporates pretty quick as i'm going to go to a completely different subject but i do want

to do that for the record may be the latest data on the number of people estimated can across border who other than mexican. it's my understanding is the majority of those coming across the border so i will submit those for the record. i want to talk about tsa for a minute. from the perspective o of the customer. ifi three or four flight segments a week and it seems to me that the customer experience has more to do with the inherent personality of the person that i encounter than a culture of customer service. you know, or if they happen to know who i am, which is a very seldom. i'm wondering, it may be think about, i didn't limit asking the question -- >> i hope you ottumwa airport you use. >> the concern that i have come we are in a very stressful time now. when people go to airports, even with this and other juicy more, the best thing you can do is have somebody that says good morning, good afternoon, thank k

you, have a nice life. i've never had, and it had good morning once over the last year and a half i've been traveling to d.c. what concern is that customer experts should be extraordinary. it should be, they are all about, $25,000 a year, $30,000 a year. you did indeed experienced employees, they are making 30, $40,000 a year. the people that are on the line, supervises, much more. we need to create a culture of customer service that thank those customers were paying 400, $500,000 for coming into that airport. they do not, we do not exist for their sake. they exist for the sake of our security. i would really like to see, if you could respond, efforts you are creating that make the tsa employees think that they are in the top customer service organization, thankful that there are people willing to fly

and appreciating them for buying their service. because they are openly paying for it. i think right now i don't have a consistent experience unless i happen to get every once in a while a person with a great attitude. i think that needs to change because it helps calm people's nerves and make that experience but a. i think that's what the tsa and airport should be all about. i will submit questions for the record about what specifically are doing too great a culture. i know you wanted by the don't see it as active and consistent on the ground. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator blumenthal? >> welcome to the committee, mr. secretary, and i want to just agree with one of my colleagues that serving as just its turn is probably the best job there is, next to serve as state attorney general.

and i want to commend you for the extraordinary work you've been in your present position. also your exemplary record of public service and many other positions in the federal government. and thank you for emphasizing at the very outset of your testimony, the increasing threat of isis inspired and supported terrorism around the world, including the threat in this country, in public places and events. as we approach the july 4 weekend. the need for caution in many of our communities, and the heightened vigilance and greater resources to agencies like yours that protect us in the face of that threat. and i know with great regret that the administration released its proposed budget for 2017, and it slashes funding for many transportation security related

programs, all too often in this place as well as in the administration. we failed to match rhetoric with resources. and i think about, for example, the reductions in the transit security grant program, the urban area security initiative, a state homeland security program, these programs are publicly unknown to most americans but they are vital to protecting our homeland. and i want to thank you also for supporting the initiative that senators markey, turbine and i have begun to try to persuade more airlines to reduce or eliminate their fees for checking baggage, which would reduce the burden on tsa, and thereby, enable us to devote

more resources to the work of tsa that's so vital. and i want to focus for the moment on priorities and practices. my experience is that there is all too often failure to follow the stated priorities and practices that are articulated at the highest level if the administration has said that it wants to deport felons, not families, but the actual enforcement record often belies that statement. all too commonly, the stated priorities are inconsistent with the actual practices and enforcement of those priorities and practices all too often simply stinks. i know that's a nontraditional

term, and i apply it to the area that is most familiar to me because of personal experience in our state with a violent, convicted felon who should have been deported, was convicted of attempted murder, was permitted to remain in our state by i.c.e., and then brutally murdered 25 year-old woman named casey chadwick. i.c.e. repeatedly declined to investigate until i insisted. equally repeatedly that it do so, and the ig report that recently was completed shows an abject failure of enforcement. i think that's the only way to

term it, repeated failings to deport the killer of casey chadwick before she was murdered. jean jacques have been convicted of attempted murder and was sought to be reported but i.c.e. never overcame the resistance and refusal of haiti to take him back. i recognize that i.c.e. can't alone overcome that resistance or refusal, but the report shows that i.c.e. failed to seek proper document from the family or from jean jacques himself. failed to enlist or elevate this issue with the department of state, failed even to go to the haitian consulate in miami to seek its cooperation. in short, failed to deport a violent, convicted felon. illegally in this country. i've asked eyes how many others

are there that are in the same position, and it has been unable to give me a number. so i would like to ask your commitment that he will join us in seeking specific changes in state department policy that will sanction those countries that refuse or resist taking back their nationals here illegally after they commit crimes and continue to pose a danger to our nation. >> yes, you have that commitment. in fact, we've been working on that. i've been working on that. i have had conversations myself directly with my foreign counterparts about the repatriation of those who have been ordered removed from our country.

senator, in general, in response to my new priorities, an increasing percentage of those in immigration detention today i'm something like 99.4% fit our immigration priorities, fit our priorities for removal. an increasing percentage of those who are deported within our priorities for removal. i have read the ig report that you refer to. we were constrained by the decision which, as you know, since after six months if there is no clear indication that the country to the we should be sent back is going to take them back, we have very limited authority to keep that person in immigration detention. i'm aware of the efforts to get haiti to take him back. i've read the ig report, and i agree that we need to continue to pressure countries to take

people back when they are deported. >> well, we have points of leverage that we can use to it doesn't have to rely simply on our persuasive power. we can deny visas. we can suspend aid. and i'm asking for more than just your contacting your counterparts. when i say you, i don't mean you personally. i mean the federal government, the administration, people in positions of authority who can say to these countries, we are simply not going to permit you to deny that this person belongs back in the country, because he or she is a danger to our country and is here illegally and has been convicted of a crime, a violent crime. i recognize that 99% may fall into different categories, but that 1% constituted casey

chadwick's murder, and that 25 year-old woman is not alive today. and i've met with her family and i've seen that heartbreak. and that's a failure of law enforcement that both of us regret. so i hope that the second part of the ig report would be done as quickly as possible. it's still outstanding, the first part has been done and released. the second part still is under way. and i welcome your commitment and look forward to working with -- >> i'm sure none of this would be satisfactory to the chadwick family, but as you know there are a host of considerations that go into the relationship we have with a number of countries, including some very big populated countries. we have, over the last two years, stepped up our efforts and, frankly, our pressure on a

number of these countries. we've entered into m.o.u.s to take back more of their people, but very clearly this is a work in progress. and at some point i'm going to advocate that we use the ultimate sanction we have available to us, which is to deny visas to these countries if we don't see more progress. >> i am way over my time and i apologize, mr. chairman, but i hope that point is now not at some indefinite point in the future. because neither you nor i want to look other families in the i and express our regret making. thanks, mr. chairman. >> senatosenator blumenthal, i k even much for the question you asked and the discussion you had because i had a very same discussion earlier, a few days ago with the secretary. and the secretary, i don't know what he can, he ought to recommend the ultimate that he can recommend people whatever he recommends will not be carried out unless the state department does it, the law says a state department shelby would.

and i don't know whether that is based on what level of recommendation he might make but i would surely back your effort that he make the strongest recommendations the law allows him to make. and in a sense dictates he makes, and we've got to get to the state department to make sure it's carried out and we've got to forget about the sensitivities of our relationships with china and the indian countries like that that are the biggest abusers of it. senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i always enjoyed seeing things being worked out, which he does with regularity. and i appreciate it. i also appreciate the work you've been doing. i've watched, you are a fine man, doing the best you can and you have some severe limitations without question. so i just want to express that to you. i would also like to just note personally that the supreme court has split 4-4 in only four

of the 61 cases since justice scalia's death. a lot of people don't realize about. is a functioning court and we will just have to see what happens here. but let me get into something that i thought interesting. i read ted koppel's book entitled lights out. is a very interesting book but it says that you were interviewed in october 2014 about our nation's preparedness in the aftermath of a successful cyber attack on the electric, electrical power grid. when asked what would happen in the event that several transformers were knocked out, and whether a backlog exist, you responded quote i'm sure fema has the capability of bringing back a transformers and poker yet when the fema administrator craig fugate was asked the same question, he was, quote most people expect that somehow we have enough tools in the tool

chest to get power turned back on quickly. the answer is no. it's been two years since your meeting with mr. koppel, and i'll ask you the same question. what would happen in the event that several transformers were knocked out? how would you go about replacing them and what kind of backlog we does exist? >> first of all remember that interview well. mr. koppel seemed to have a thesis that he wanted my interview to fit within, and beyond what was his thesis didn't seem to be interested in much else i had to say. we do have an incident response plan in the event that generators are knocked out, that calls for the prioritization of assets, moving generators from one region to another. this is a partnership with private utilities, the private sector. the book, overall, i think is

useful. i believe the book is useful in highlighting an issue. i think that since the earthquake in japan that knocked out their utility there, it's been a bit of a wakeup call. and we have stuck to our efforts in terms of training come in terms of exercise. we have better coordination now in this regard, i'd in the event of a specific incident, both we and the private sector would swing into action to determine where assets need to be moved, or generators need to be moved to prioritize addressing the public need if there is a blackout someplace. >> i recently read a "wall street journal" op-ed by former senator tom coburn about the stockpile of arms and ammunition by a number of federal agencies. i would ask unanimous consent to insert "the wall street journal" op-ed into the record. >> without objection. >> like many who read this piece

i was taken aback by how many federal agencies such as the internal revenue service and small business administration at the department of education have armed personnel and weapons stockpiles. one report estimates that since 2004 the department of homeland security purchased 1.7 billion bullets and has an estimated inventory in reserve at 22 months or 160 million rounds. people would not be surprised if the army was doing this, but what is a dhs doing with 1.7 billion bullets? the iron is not lost on me as this administration is arming itself, it is pushing and control for law-abiding americans. these are things that just kind of getting under people's skin. but if you could answer that quickly i would like to ask a few more questions. >> it's been while since i looked at that particular issue. my recollection is that the reporting on it wasn't very

good, and the number that people cite is the number of the total authorization for the acquisition of ammunition. it was a message with the number that was actually acquired. that's my recollection of the issue but it's been about two years since i've looked at it closely. >> do you agree with the supreme court that the second amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that that right is a fundamental right? >> yes, sir. >> do you agree that ought to be due process before a government takes action to prevent an individual from exercising that fundamental right? if the answer is no, can be done with other fundamental rights you believe government can properly deny without prior due process? >> my view is this, senator. i think, i studied the feinstein

bill and i've studied the bill sponsored by senator collins and others. i think that if someone is denied the ability purchase a gun, there ought to be some form of process involved in that. now, if you're getting with defending national street investigation, there may be some sensitivity there that can't be addressed in an open proceeding. and we ought to figure out a way to account for classified information, information that is law enforcement sensitive. no, overall sense is the feinstein bill makes a good effort at that. and i think it's imperative that we try to wrestle with is. >> let me just say that i would just like to say the due process is critically important, it seems to me the liberty into protecting our constitutional rights, that i think it is irresponsible to suggest that

somehow the due process some of his less important some context but with regard to certain rights. all constitutional rights are important and they deserve full protection especially fundamental rights. express rights in the constitution. let me just conclude by saying this one thing. in april for the fourth in a row a 20 these the quote is reached in the first five days of the filing period. there was a record-setting 236,000 applicants for only 85,000 available visas. i remain committed to fixing the system so it works for both employers and american workers i hope dhs will finally be willing to put partisan considerations aside and work to alleviate this clearing problem. i know you feel, at least i think pretty much the same idea. we've got to solve this problem, and we can do it and we can do it with some reasonable ability to seems to me.

i just want to make that comme comment. >> i would like to take that question for the record. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. for what its worth i would add to senator hatch's conversation that the freedom to travel is also a fundamental constitutional right, and that's a freedom that we don't seem to have the same concern about inhibiting by keeping people from flying when they're on the terror watch list. my question to you, mr. secretary, has to do with something quite specific, and i'm sorry to have to raise it to your level, but you oversee theme, as you know. one of the most responsibilities is flood mapping. that very important responsibility of particular for coastal states like rhode island. it affects people's ability to purchase a property of the decisions they make about that, it affects their decision and the ability to build and it

affects the insurance that they can and/or must have. rhode island essentially pretty good at flood mapping. we have a coastal resources management council, our own agency that is delegated federal power for that, and i think they are one of the best anywhere. we have a university -- >> i'm listening, i'm listening. [inaudible conversations] >> the situation i talked about earlier seems to have resulted so. that's all i wanted to let you know. excuse me, i'm sorry. >> that's okay. we have university, the universe of rhode island that is also very expert at this.

our cultural resources management council and our expert at the university of rhode island tell me that the fema mapping for rhode island is wrong and, indeed, not wrong but a little. really badly wrong, with obvious errors like assuming that flooding can't go above levels that we actually saw flooding go above during sandy. so if, in fact, the fema mapping is wrong for rhode island, we are coming into hurricane season in august and september and october, and it's really important that we try to get this right. so here's the problem. i was asked to set up a meeting with our coastal resources management council folks and with our uri flood mapping experts to meet with fema and go

through what is happening. and try to get an explanation of the differences between fema's mapping and what we are showing with our state mapping. we have been unable to get that meeting. one of the demands has been that there be a premeeting before the fema regional administrative would meet with us, and we haven't even been able to schedule the premeeting because it evidently requires so many different people from different parts of the bureaucracy that we can't get them to have that meeting scheduled. so time is ticking away. hurricane season is approaching. we have with experts in the state are telling us are dramatically flawed federal maps and we have a federal bureaucracy that will not meet with us. could you please clear that traffic jam for us? >> yes. >> thank you.

>> i will make that happen. >> second, by way of kudos, i was at the airport in providence a few i guess months back now when there was a power outage. not just at the airport but in the locality. as a result of the power outage, tsa had to stop what they were doing because it was no longer power going to the magnetometers for the machines, and you got very, very big backup as the front end stopped and everybody who is coming through just piled up in line. your tsa folks in rhode island responded to that by deploying themselves in such a way and getting everything ready to go so that when the power came back on, they had every line going. they get people at all the different security positions that were there, and the result

was that the power did, in fact, come back on and the line was cleared extremely rapidly. so i think, you know, you probably hear a lot of racism of tsa. they had a problem that was unexpected. they lost power. they figured that i was going to come back on at some point. they deployed themselves to be ready for when it did you really accelerate. everybody through the line. it succeeded, and some one instance of a job well done. last point. your organization manages the framework process for critical infrastructure, protecting our critical infrastructure elements from cyber attacks. i'm interested in finding out what efforts have been made to red team that framework effort and make sure that it is really

achieving the goals of providing robust cybersecurity for our critical infrastructure. i am hearing good reports from the industries involved, but what i can't tell is whether everybody is happy because they are being asked to do so little. or whether everybody is happy because this really is creating robust cybersecurity across our critical infrastructure. it would seem to me that some sort of an outside red team type analysis of what is going on would be the way to make that determination. do you have anything to that effect going on? >> let me have assistant secretary caitlin burke of which who owns this exact issue give you a response to your question, a full response that i can give sitting here. it's a good question, and i want her to give you a full and complete answer.

>> i appreciate that. >> i will make a plug for something that we've asked congress to do here, which is to reorganize our national protection and programs directorate into a cyber and infrastructure protection agency. we need an agency for cybersecurity that directly the lines the cybersecurity function with a critical infrastructure protection function. and so that's what this concept is designed to do, more streamlined effort to align cyber with critical infrastructure. we've asked for every organization from congress of that. i know the house homeland committee is considering it and possibly drafting language. and if this is something the senate would consider, i think it would go a long way to addressing both cyber and the protection of critical infrastructure. >> we look forward to working with you on the. we've had good bipartisan work

in the senate and on this committee in the past. thank you. >> good morning mr. secretary. good to see you. >> good morning, sir. >> i believe the supreme court decision and the prejudice executive actions on immigration was entirely predictable. and, of course, affirmed due to the split nature of the court, the decision by the cour court n brown so agile and also by the fifth circuit. the worst part of it is frankly to my mind not to overreach by the president, and i know you advised them on the legality of the scope of his orders, but it isn't that the president essentially poisoned the well for any bipartisan i came up efforts to actually reform our broken immigration system. you mentioned and senator blumenthal mentioned the case which require you to release dangerous people into our communities after six months if you can't place them. that's exactly, that's one of the types of things i think we

should and could address to immigration reform legislation. but our friends across the aisle say that because of the house and didn't fall in line and rubberstamp the senate legislation, that some of this is a problem only with the congress. but, frankly, the president was warned before he issued his executive actions order in 2014 that this would poisoned the well that and the fact that you believe is exactly what's happened. there will be no immigration reform during the course of this presidents remaining time in office. but let me turn your attention to orlando and a terrible tragedy where 49 people lost their lives, 50 others i believe it was were injured by the shooter there. was that a case of terrorism or was that an example of lax gun laws? >> i would have to say, i would

have to say it was a case of act of terrorism, and i was a little different than you say. i would say that one of the ways in which we can make it harder for terrorists to acquire guns like the weapons used in orlando are more effective gun laws. >> you aren't aware of the fact that the shooter had a license to own and -- direct? >> correct. >> it was a licensed security guard so what other additional laws do you think should be passed to prevent something like the shooter in orlando from outgaining firearms? if he had a license to own them. >> i believe that, and we can't always just respond and make policy in reaction to the last event. we've got to think about the next event, too, senator. >> we also need to pass legislation that will solve the problem and not just pursue a preordained ideological agenda. but let me ask you a little bit, you opine some about due process

law. you're a very accomplished lawyer. >> i used to be. >> you are still. and serve with distinction at the department of defense, and i admire your skills as a lawyer. i realize you are in a different role now, making policies and serving an administration. i understand your role. i just wanted to want to ask you to read the -- revisit your comment about whether a constitutional right to be deprived without due process to law. we are not just talking about the second amendment. we are talking of the fifth in them and the 14th of the constitution. i think senator whitehouse asked about constitutional freedom to travel and, of course, that is a constitutional right. that is a constitutional right to fly on an airplane, is there? >> i suspect there are legal opinions around to answer that question. i haven't read one lately.