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.

so speed is are you aware of any legal opinion respectable legal opinion that would say there's a constitutional right to get on airplanes because i know there's a freedom to travel and freedom to associate regarded as a right in this country. >> i agree, freedom to travel. there is no court decision, no respectable legal opinion message of the right to get an airplane or i suspect people would have successfully challenged the watchlist to prevent people from getting on airplanes. speak the supreme court in the 1930s said the okies had travel to california but california didn't want them. >> but not on an airplane. >> no, obviously. [laughter] >> if you let me ask my question. here's my question, my real question. ..

>> the idea that you can provide due process on the back end, you can come back -- you can go to court and then insist that right be enforced. that concerns me a lot, and i agree with the question i think that was posed by senator grassley or senator hatch where we asked, well, what other -- if you can do it for the second amendment, why can't you do it for the other constitutional rights american citizens have? so there is a process on back end, but it's, i doubt any court in the country would say it's a due process of law if it didn't occur on the front end. let me just ask you, who's on the no-fly list? >> who? >> who is on the no-fly list or these watch lists? these are classified lists, right? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear your question.

>> who is on the no-fly list? >> who is on the no-fly list. would you like a list? it's a defined list. >> how many of them are american citizens and how many of them are based, in part at least, on their identity as muslims? >> i don't believe we put people on the no-fly list based on religion, sir. >> well, i hope not. i hope not, because i believe that discriminating against people based on religion is wrong. and i know you and i both agree to that. but there is no requirement that the government come forward and provide any evidence in order to -- to an independent third party to put somebody on a no-fly list, is there? >> no, not the private sector, sir. >> so is this a case of where people are are being profiled? based on religion, based on where they live, based on their travel habits? or what is the presence of a person's name on a fly list

based on? >> there's criteria spelled out. i don't recall sitting here whether that criteria is public, but there's criteria that is spelled out -- i believe that, i believe that's right. s not public, and it is secret, and so it's on a classified list. if you had evidence that somebody on one of those lists had committed a crime, probable cause, you could -- they could be arrested, correct? >> hopefully, yes. >> so something less than proof of probable cause a crime has been committed will permit somebody's name to be on a no-fly list? >> well, it's not just based on conviction of a crime. it's based on the fact that there could be a pending investigation, it's based on a number of things that don't necessarily amount to conviction of a crime. or some judicial judgment.

>> based on suspicion that somebody might commit an act of terrorism in the future. my -- >> it's a little more complicated than that, sir. but, yes. >> it's more complicated than that, but yes? >> it's criteria spelled out that, as you point out, is not public. >> well, i just, i think it's really important because we don't profile people based on their religion that the basis upon which people are being denied their constitutional rights because their name happens to be on a secret no-fly list, that that be presented to an impartial magistrate who could then make the decision whether that prohibition of a constitutional right or denial of a constitutional right is permissible or not. because i think we're on a very slippery slope if based on secret lists that the government maintains people can be denied their constitutional rights without due process of law. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman, may i, may i respond? >> [inaudible] >> if you don't mind, senator.

>> [inaudible] >> i -- senator, i believe that in this environment that includes terrorist-inspired attacks, that includes the home grown violent extremists we owe it to ourselves to figure out a way short of a criminal conviction or any of the other statutorily-enumerated criteria that currently exist to give the attorney general the discretion to say no to a gun purchase under particular circumstances along with some form of process so that that individual can challenge that decision. i think this is a matter of homeland security that we try to wrestle with this issue. and there are a lot of smart people in this congress, including the gentleman i'm looking at right now, who i think if you came together with

some of the other smart gentlemen i'm looking at right now, could figure this out. i think we owe it to homeland security to try to do this. and i can't do this in the executive branch. we need the congress to wrestle with this issue. and i think this congress has done some, solved some pretty hard issues like cybersecurity late last year. and i think that in this environment we owe it to the public to try to take this on. >> and that would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association. what other constitutional rights would you say could be denied unilaterally by the government based on their presence on a secret watch list? >> well, i think that there are circumstances where if we, through law, provide a process for denying somebody the ability to acquire an assault weapon or an assault-like weapon because

her about to commit an act of terror, that it should concern if proper orally constructed -- survive any type of court challenge. i have a lot of confidence in this congress to be able to figure this out. and i hope you try. >> there's a bill that does that. it's called the cornyn amendment. it got 55 votes in the united states senate on a bipartisan basis. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's great to be here. i'm sort of amazed at the conversation of my colleague and dear friend jim mape from texas. all of a sudden when it comes to the fourth amendment, we have emergency powers. police officers in danger, they don't have to go through a process. and my colleague and i have agreed, we're on the -- we tend to be a little more on the hawkish side on those kinds of things, on the pro-law enforcement side. but all of a sudden when it comes to guns, the standard becomes absolutely ridiculous. if we are saying that the only time you should be prohibited from buying a gun or going on an

airplane in this new world of terrorism is if the criteria that can convict, the criteria exists that law enforcement has that can convict you of a crime, that is a path to oblivion. and the people who will be laughing at that are the leaders of isis is and those they inspire. that is absolutely way beyond what i have ever heard. and we don't hear that argument, say, on search and seizure and the fourth amendment from my colleague. and let's treat them all the the same. i believe there's a right to bear arms. i believed it before heller. i believe every law-abiding american has the right to have a gun, and i don't agree -- as someone who advocates for gun control -- with the people who believe the first amendment and the fourth are on the liberal side. the first amendment and all these others should be expanded to a huge extent, and the second amendment should be seen, say, through the pinhole of militias. but it's the opposite here.

there is a balancing test. and guns are more dangerous than walking down the street. and to say we should have the same standard, we can rescind your liberty -- doesn't make any sense in the world of terrorism. and my guess? 95% -- i know, 95% of americans and 90% of the gun owners agree with me that there should be, you shouldn't get a gun if you're on the no-fly list. you should have a right to appeal. you outlined it very well. so i would say, i would say to my dear friend looking out for his self-interests, don't keep walking down that path. it's a path to real problems for america, and it's hardly the right political path that either party should walk down. with that, let me go to separate questions. and i was going to welcome you. i was going to welcome you because not only are you a great, great secretary, but

you're one of at least as my count five new yorkers -- don't say this new jersey stuff -- [laughter] we have loretta lynch, and we have you, and we have jack lew, and we have secretary perez and secretary king. so we're very proud of all of you. to change the subject. i don't know how many texans there are on the committee, but i would welcome many, because they're a very good state. okay. my first question is about something you and i have talked about for a while. it's a different subject but very important to the people of western new york, and that is the peace bridge. and i think it's a critical component to a larger effort to resolve congestion, improve commerce and security as well as air quality and environment in western new york. as you know, the department of homeland security, in consultation with the cpp, conducted a pilot study of pre-inspection that clearly demonstrates, demonstrated fully implementing the program could

save significant time at the border crossing. additionally, locating booths on the canadian side of the border can help resolve some of the logistical challenges we face on our u.s. side. we have less room, as you know, mr. secretary. buffalo side has less room. i understand that fully implementing this program will require legislation here in congress. i'm working with my colleagues including ranking member leahy. he has a canadian border too, on that legislation. however, as you know, in addition to the legislation -- which i hope will pass this year -- we need a specific mou with canada at the peace bridge. where are your negotiations with the new canadian government to make this happen? we have a new government. will you commit to getting an mou permanent pre-inspection completed for the peace bridge by the end of year? >> senator, it's been a while since i've checked in on progress concerning the peace bridge. i should have done that before i

knew i was going to have the hearing. >> even after all that nice praise i gave you? >> yes, i know. i have to, i have to check to see where we are on the status of our discussions, senator, and i would be happy to get back to you. >> okay. but would you make every effort to get this done by the end of year? >> i will make every effort to do the right thing and get this done. i have to check in on the status of it. >> by the end of the year? >> the end of the year. well, the end of the year is rapidly approaching. the end of my time is rapidly approaching. >> that's why i'm saying the end of year. i may not even have a new yorker as head of homeland secretary, although we will have one as president. [laughter] >> senator, let me check in on this issue. >> okay. well, let me just say, i really urge you to work as quickly as you can to get this done. we don't have much more time to wait. this has been a long process. the canadian government has changed twice in the parts of that process. but we're in a good place now. this is really important to western new york which is

beginning to grow, and the toronto area which has grown in terms of congress, in terms of everything else. so, please, i importune you to spend a little time on this and get it done, okay? all right. i have a little more time. so i'd like to follow up on senator klobuchar's question on tsa waiting lines. >> yes. >> as you know, there's been a great deal of focus on tsa wait times, and it's probably going to get worse in the travel season. i appreciate your efforts to onboard additional agents and station then at high priority airports like three we have in the new york metropolitan area, one of which is in new jersey, i might add. however, retraining k-9 teams to aid passenger screening is another way, proven way to help improve airport throughput because the dogs can check the luggage, check everything. they almost never make a mistake. they're wonderful, canines, wonderful animals.

can you give us any indication when tsa will be able to fully fill the recommended k-9 team numbers for each new york airport? currently, we're short. you know, they're mobile, obviously. so you take them to the place where there's the longest line, and they can speed things up. >> i know we have brought on additional k-9 teams in response to the increased travel volume and that the k-9 teams have made a huge difference. there's no better technology than a dog's nose. and we have a plan to bring on more. the exact timetable for the new york area airports, i don't know sitting here right now. i do want to take the opportunity to thank congress for responding so promptly to my reprogramming request to convert part time to full time and to expedite the hiring of new people. it has made a huge difference. and as i said earlier today, 99% of the public has an average wait time of 30 minutes or less.

93% has an average wait time of 15 minutes or less. i think, i just checked on jfk before i came here. i think it may be manager around -- something around 10 or 12 minutes at jfk. so, but this is something we're going to continue to work on through the summer. summer in general has a lot more air travel. we're not out of the thick of it yet. and longer term, i want to see us build back the tsa work force. we downsized over a number of years, and i think it's time to reverse that trend and start building this back up. >> agree with you and would like to help you build back that work force. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, secretary johnson. last week the supreme court affirmed a decision by the u.s. court of appeals for the 5th circuit upholding a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the implementation of obama administration's dapa program

applicable to certain qualifying undocking united immigrants. now, in the lower federal courts, in the district court and before the 5th circuit, the administration argued that the scope of the preliminary injunction at issue should be narrowly confined to texas. >> yes. >> alternatively, they argue that even if it shouldn't be narrowly confined to texas, it should, at a minimum, be narrowly confined to the total of 26 states including texas that were part of the lawsuit. now, the 5th circuit significantly rejected that position, rejected that argument right on its merits. among other things, the 5th circuit held that partial implementation would detract from the scheme of regulation created by congress. the 5th circuit also reasoned, quote: there is a substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective because dapa beneficiaries would

be free to move among states. closed quote. now, given the fact that the 5th circuit rejected this argument, given the fact that the 5th circuit's opinion and order upholding that preliminary injunction has now itself been upheld, what is your position on whether dhs has any legal authority to selectively implement the dapa program? meaning to selectively implement it either outside of texas, outside the 5th circuit or outside of those 26 states. >> there's no, there's no plan to do that, if that's what you're asking. >> okay. okay. >> we will abide by the court's injunction as affirmed by the 5th circuit and the supreme court. now, i'll -- >> so you're willing to honor the nationwide effect of the 5th circuit's opinion. >> we don't have a plan to do otherwise, senator.

and we intend to honor the court order. i'll tell you, going back to my days as general counsel at, the od, a district judge -- at dod, a district judge in california enjoined don't ask, don't tell in 2010. one district judge. and we interpreted that as a worldwide injunction. and i directed that the field respond accordingly, though it was one district court. so -- >> you don't seem to think any reason to do differently here? >> i don't -- sitting here i don't have a plan to try to implement it in some places and not others. i mean, i, i'm hoping that congress will wrestle with this issue itself. >> okay. >> that's not happened, unfortunately. it happened in the senate, it hasn't happened in the house. >> well, thank you. >> i think it's an issue we need to reckon with. senator cornyn says we poisoned the well, we waited for --

>> secretary johnson, i understand your position. i've got limited time here, but i understand your position. i'm grateful for your representation of that point. will you update us if that position changes? >> yeah. we don't have, we don't have a plan to -- >> but you'll update us if that changes -- >> in some form of fashion, yes, sir. >> okay, thank you. now, i'm interested in your answer to the last question in part because of the deeply troubling actions of some department of justice lawyers and and their representations to the courts in this case. last month the federal be district judge assigned to this case held that come was, quote, intentionally deceptive in its egregious misrepresentations to the court and to the 26 plaintiff states. according to the court, quote: doj admitted that both dhs and doj personnel knew that the three-year daca renewals were

being granted as early as december 2014, pursuant to the 2014 dhs directive. now, despite the department of homeland security's preemptive implementation, the department of justice assured the judge, gave the judge absolutely -- absolute assurance and also gave an assurance to opposing counsel representing these 26 states including texas in december of 2014 and again in january 2015 that the agency would not begin implementing the 2014 dhs directive until at least february 2015. that turned out not to be case. now, up surprisingly this representation, the representation characterized by the judge as intentionally deceptive, lawyerly runaround, turned out to serve the agency's objectives. according to the court, these were material misrepresentations

that allowed dhs' attorneys to effectively mislead the suing states into forgoing a temporary restraining order or an earlier hearing to try to stop the implementation of this program, of the president's unilateral executive action on immigration. and so in the meantime, during period in which we're talking about dhs granted or renewed over 100,000 modified daca applications using the dhs directive. so let me ask you, when did your agency tell the department of justice that it had, in fact, begun implementing the 2014 dhs directive? >> senator, this is a matter in litigation before the judge, as you noted, so i don't know that it would be appropriate for me to comment on it except to say that the timeline for granting

three-year versus two-year deferred action pursuant to the new policy was evident on the face of the new policy which was in the court's record. in the court's record, we laid out in the policy the timetable for beginning to grant the three-year eads versus two-year eads. so that was not a secret. so beyond that -- >> you disagree with the judge's characterization that there were material misrepresentations made to the court and to the 26 states including texas that were plaintiffs -- >> sir, in litigation. i won't agree or disagree. it's a litigated matter, and it'll be addressed by the department of justice, i'm sure. >> well, i do think it's important to be addressed, and i would love to get to the bottom of it, and i'd hope and expect that anytime our country's

lawyers are representing the united states government that they will tell the truth and that they will not misrepresent especially materially misrepresent things to the court and to opposing come. i see my time's expired. thank you, secretary johnson. thank you, mr. chairman. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome. thank you for testifying. >> good morning, sir. >> good morning. on tuesday of this week, this committee's oversight subcommittee conducted a hearing on the systematic scrubbing of law enforcement and intelligence materials. your department was invited to attend, and the department of homeland security refused to attend the hearing. at that hearing we heard testimony that described a systematic effort if one compares, for example, the 9/11 commission report. the word jihad appears in that

report 126 times, the word muslim appears in that report 145 times, the word islam appears in that report 322 times. and yet since that 9/11 commission report, different policies have come into effect. and as a matter of systematic policy, those terms are no longer allowed to be used in this administration. the fbi counterterrorism lexicon uses the word jihad zero times. the national intelligence strategy of 2009 uses the word jihad zero times. the strategic implementation plan to prevent violent extremism of 2011 uses the word zero times. the national intelligence strategy in 2014 uses the word zero times. we also heard testimony from a former employee of the department of homeland security, phil haney, that in october 2009 more than 800 customs and border patrol documents were ordered

modified, scrubbed or deleted to jihad or the muslim brotherhood or other similar references. was mr. haney's testimony that the department of homeland security ordered over 800 documents in cbb altered or deleted? was that testimony accurate? >> i have no idea. i don't know who mr. haney is. i wouldn't know him if he walked in the room. >> so you have not investigated whether your department ordered documents to be modified in 2009 to remove references to jihad, radical islamic terrorism, the muslim brotherhood? you have not investigated that question? >> no, i have not taken the time to investigate what mr. haney says. no. >> and when the united states senate judiciary oversight committee conducted a hearing on that, did you or anyone in your staff inquire into those issues?

>> no. but you have me right now to answer questions of. >> your answer is you don't know. i am scu yo in 2009 and again in 2012 mr. haven think testifies there were two purges, and that was the word he used, purge, at the department of homeland security to remove references to radical islamic terrorism. is it accurate that the records were changed -- >> same answer i gave you before. i have no idea, sir. >> you have no knowledge of any records being changed at department of homeland security. >> same answer. i have no idea, sir. >> would it concern you if it was accurate? >> senator be, i find this whole debate to be very interesting, but i have to tell you, when i was at the department of defense giving the legal sign-off on a lot of drone strikes, i didn't particularly care whether the baseball call said islamic extremist or violent extremist. i think this is very interesting, but it makes no difference to me in terms of who we need to go after who is

determined to attack our homeland. the other point i'd like to make, sir, is that -- and i have to think in practical terms in homeland security. i think this is all very interesting, makes for good political debate. but in practical terms, if we in our efforts here in the homeland start giving the islamic state the credence that they want to be referred to as part of islam or some form of islam, we will get nowhere in our efforts to build bridges with muslim communities which we need to do in this current environment right now that includes homegrown violent extremists. >> mr. secretary, my time is limited for this -- >> hold on just a second, please. they all tell me that isil has hijacked my religion, and it's critical that we bring these people to our side. >> you're entitled to give speeches other times. my question was if you were aware that the information has

been scrubbed. i would note the title of the hearing on tuesday was willful blindness, and your testimony to this full committee now is that you have no idea and apparently have no intention of finding out -- >> that's not what i -- >> -- whether dhs materials have been scrubbed. and you suggested just a moment ago that it's essentially a semantic difference. well, i don't believe it is a semantic difference. that when you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur. >> yet the administration did

not act and hassan walk-through ford hood murdering 14 innocent souls. do you think it was a mistake not to respond to those red flags a head of time and prevent the terrorist attack at fort hood? >> i disagree with your factual predicate. >> what you did screw? >> i disagree with your factual predicate. >> in one minute i cannot possibly answer your question take anything. >> it was wrong and a number of respects the next pick one things are. >> first of all you are assuming that the federal government in advance of the attack on fort hood saw these different red flags. that is not correct. >> 's are you testifying to this committee, let's take the fact that entities one piece at a time. you are an experienced attorney. number one, is a true false the obama administration to be for the attack that he was communicating --

>> how are you defining the obama administration's are. >> the federal bureau of investigation. >> the entire pure federal bureau bit investigation i can answer that. >> the answer is yes, it is an public records are. >> i can answer that question. >> okay let's take another example. the czar nap brothers, russian informed the united states they were affiliated with radical islamic terrorism, we interview them of the department of homeland security missed when they went to chechnya and met with radical islamic terrorists. the administration administration missed when there is a public posting of the czarnik brothers calling for jihadist and the boston bombing they set up, murdering three people and wounded 180. was it a was it a mistake not to respond more effectively to those red flags and prevent that act of radical terrorism? >> i disagree with some of what you said. i do believe that there were

some lessons learned from that episode. i believe that as a result of doing a better job connecting the right.speemac mr. secretary, the concern of my time has expired, this has expired, this will be my final question. the concern is this pattern of failing to connect the dots. it keeps occurring over and over again. it occurred in san bernardino when the email terrace gave a fake address in pakistan and yet the administration failed to discover that. it occurred in orlando when the terrorist was interviewed three times, he pledged his allegiance to al qaeda and hezbollah, had what was an associate of the first american suicide bomber in syria and yet we did not act to prevent it. what concerns me, and i believe it should concern the department of homeland security is that

because of this effort scrubbing your law-enforcement materials of any acknowledgment of radical islamic terrorism when you see the red flag of radical islamic terrorism you do not follow up on them effectively and we have terrorist attack after terrorist attack, after after terrorist attack that could have been prevented but for this administrations willful blindness. >> may respond question. >> yes, please do. >> then we'll go to senator purdue and then just to notify everybody when we had that demonstration, i lost one half and half minutes of my first seven minutes, i'm going to take that out when senator poo is done and then we'll go with other senators. >> first of all, virtually every day i read about the good work of our law-enforcement personnel, our homeland homeland security personnel, and our intelligence community connecting the dots to identify

potential terrorist plots. terrorist plots on our homeland, irrespective of the label you want to put on it. i think our people are smart enough to identify somebody was a violent extremist, who is self radicalizing, who is moving toward violence when there are some warning signs like somebody who sees somebody buying a gun or training, or buying weapons of explosive material. every day see people connecting the dots across our law-enforcement intelligence communities. >> are there lessons learned, could we do a better job, the answers probably is. but every day see this happening and i think we are doing a better job and i think that our people are smart enough to identify potential terrorist behavior whether you call it islamic,

extremist, or anything else. i think i think the labels frankly are less important except where we need to build bridges to american muslim communities and not vilify them so that they will help us help them. that is my answer to your question sir. >> thank you. >> 's transcended her pretty. >> thank you mr. secretary. in april you are here and i asked your question about these overstates and you gave me an answer that you had seen some planetary reports that they lacked fidelity and in january the report came out. that report showed about 500,000 over stays of workers and in 2015 alone. later last year in testimony before the senate it was disclosed there only investigating about 3000 visa entry overstates. my question to you is with 40% of illegal aliens in this country estimated to be these overstates, and my math that is somewhere around 5,000,000

people people if i get that math right. so, with that in mind what is it dh is doing to increase the number of visa over staycations that it is investigating, and what are you finding in the visa cases that you are? , and he deportations did we manage last year? >> i do not know the number 40% is accurate. the reports report that was issued in january revealed our estimate that there is somewhere four and 500,000 these overstates. that is a rolling number. people enter and then people leave,. >> but for some. of time there are reports directionally that there are about 40% are here illegal due to visa overstay. >> that part i don't know if i could testify. >> i'm not asking the asker see of that i'm looking more at the investigation. i think i'm asking you the question. >> no let me answer your question.

in response to that report i had directed our immigration enforcement people to more specifically prioritize the visa over stays so that we identify those we should focus our resources on, who have overstay their visa beyond a certain. of time not just two, three, four days., four days. who came to this country after certain period of time, and who represent threats to public safety. we are developing those parties right now. in the meantime we do put in removal proceedings, people who have overstay their visas. with the benefit of this report which starts with b1, b2 visas, we are prioritizing visa over stays to get at this population. >> it is the 3000 number still fairly directionally correct of

the number of investigations that are outstanding? >> i'm actually not sure of the x the of that. i will have to get back to on that, sir. >> i would like to get a response that. also how many deportations. i would love to see that over the last years that was not in the report. i'd like to move onto the biometric entry exit program. in 1996, congress required the limitation of congress required the implementation of that system, now 20 years later, and even the 911 commission call for it as well to be an essential tool and defending our country. exit tracking in in places like u.k., france, even saudi arabia them i'm encouraged by some of the pilot pros, and atlanta hard sales is but one of those. i would love to get your take on early indication of that mobile projects and are their rollout plans to expand that nationwide question work. >> yes. >> what is the timetable roughly question work. >> congress, as you know the senator appropriated think $1 billion for biometric exit. i said to my people at the beginning of the year, this is

been a congressional mandate since 1996. we have to do this. so we have the pilot in atlanta as noted. i provokes on the timetable where we will have started this by 2018. we will not have got to full nationwide but will have this in place at least pieces of it by 2018. i believe that bio makes metric exit in particulars a best practice and we need to move toward that. >> so early indication of that pilot are positive been question work. >> i believe so. >> will give us hope that a directional plan to put a nationally. >> i believe so. >> number one, when we get to the searing refugee issue, how many syrian refugees have entered the country in the last year? >> so for this fiscal year we settled i think we just across the 5 million mark. last year was about sitting

hundred, this year we search resources to deal with this population and vet them, it's around 5000 right now. for this fiscal your. >> of the visa over sais, about two or 3000 people there from watch countries, countries like pakistan, countries like pakistan, iraq, syria, do we keep track of those people once they're here? does dhs have any information about where this people are and what they're involved in at all? >> we do. often when we go to look for them to the information is outdated. somebody has moved on from that address and so through investigative means we have to track them down. >> comedy cases should we be investigating the year given the high number of these overstates? whatever that number is. 3000 cannot be attic quit given 500,000 -- >> i like to prioritize within this population those who

represent public safety threats, those who have overstay their visa for a very long period of time and that probably means a number of investigation should go up sir. >> the last question when you look at the idea of who is on the watchlist, we debated that over the last few weeks relative to this terror attack in orlando. my question is, if someone is under watchlist or no-fly list, why are they here illegally, why they still here illegally? wouldn't they be a priority, if we've identified them not to be on a no-fly list, they are here illegally, wouldn't they be a priority for us to investigate and deport? >> well most likely were talking about non-us citizen. >> yes. >> most likely they are priorities most likely they are under investigation, some form

of lot -- >> can you give us some information on some follow-up information. >> there may be law-enforcement sensitive reasons why we don't act on them at the moment. >> i understand. think mr. chairman. >> thank you senator pretty. you were here i do not read my opening statement because it was so long and i knew we had a long meeting here with you. but i want to read a few sentences from it so you know what i'm leading up to my first question. this month, just two weeks ago by people were trapped by a fire and killed in los angeles department building, the man who allegedly started the fire was in the country illegally and have been previously arrested for domestic violence and drug charges. for out of the five victims have been identified so far and all our constituents from ottumwa, iowa. too. too many americans have lost their lives and too many families have had to feel the real and devastating impact caused by sanctuary cities and lax immigration enforcement. so, what has changed since k stanley was killed one year ago? not enough. as i mentioned earlier, sarah

ruta was killed was when edwin dashmac, and on document a person who was drag racing while under the influence of alcohol ran into her car earlier this year. this driver was later released from custody because of federal government refused to issue a detainer. because of the twisted priorities that we seem to have in this country, on the immigration policy, are consequences to actions or particularly when actions are not taken criminals are not being detained and even when somebody's life is taken. this is why i introduced a bill last night that would address this problem. so i along with the senators of iowa and nebraska sent a letter to immigration custom enforcement to request information on drunk driver that killed sarah roots. instead of providing the

information requested, they responded that the information was protected by the privacy act. first the privacy act authorizes disclosure to congress. second, the privacy act does not cover people who are in the united states illegally and there has been court cases on that, even court cases that said resident aliens sometimes are not covered by the privacy act. your department misapplied the privacy act by claiming to protect people in the country illegally. of course we listen to sarah's family because they are from iowa and they are very disturbed about it. they cannot comprehend why he was seeing to have more rights than they do. would you ensure that your policies match the statute? don't you think that sarah roots family deserves and all available information about

their daughter's killer? >> yes, consistent consistent with law i will look into the request that you have made chairman. i will ensure that you receive a reply. >> thank you. i sent you a letter regarding the nomination of secretaries award for valor to irene martin, the head of san bernadino u.s. citizenship and immigration services office who refused to let homeland security investigation agents detain terror suspect and who the inspector general later founded to have lacked candor. your department confirmed that martin was nominated in march, long after the disturbing incident occurred in december and after whistleblowers raise concerns about her actions in january. do you think it is okay to

nominate employees like martin who are under inspector general investigation for the secretaries award of valor? >> i am aware of your letter and i am aware of the issue. i have not acted on whether or not this employee should receive the valor award and i want to look at the complete package, sir. >> okay, thank you very much. what i have two more questions. you and and i have had a few discussions about eb five program and i think we have had long discussions about that so thank you. i know you share my concerns about the program. i appreciate the fact that you are working to issue regulations that mere reforms that chairman goodlett, senatorleahy, the congress and i have been pushing. will the regulation you plan to roll out soon finally do away with gerrymandering to prevent regional senators from using an unlimited number of census tracts to bill affluent

areas even though they are not high unemployment areas as the long visions? limiting gerrymandering was one of the changes that we are developing consistent with your recommendation, sir. i think we discussed the other day we intended to put the changes out for comment in november. as a soon as november. that is on the list. >> thank you. this is my last question. when you when you and i spoke this week you took credit for decreasing the number of criminal immigrants who have been released from 36000 to 30,000, but this is still too many criminals who are released into our community and i think a threat to public safety. some would suggest that you are releasing fewer people because you are detaining fewer people. that is evidenced by the case of sarah route, your route, your so-called enforcement priorities allow drunk drivers to roam free. please consider changing your policies to ensure that all individuals who are with driving under the influence are

priorities for removal? >> i have certainly encouraged that in specific cases including this one. that it may be an important federal interest to put a person in removal proceedings and those type of circumstances. the other thing i will say senator, as you know the number of criminal releases since i've been secretary have declined from fy 13 to fy 14 down to 30,000. fy 15, fy 15, because the policy changes we made the number was around 1900 which is even lower. i suspect in this year it will be even lower if not, it will be higher, but it will be lower, probably. i would like to see that number reduced and i think the changes we made to the system about two years ago have had that effect. >> in regard to drunk driving

and this is not a question i will end with his comment. i think if there is pressure in the one case that i am talking about and i think you want to consider all of the cases that involve drunk driving and change that policy. senator gober chart. she is going for the second round, i don't have a second round so we will be done when she is done. >> thank you mr. chairman, i chairman, i will be brief. i really just had one question. just listening to some of my colleagues here i am a former prosecutor and i have been very supportive of your efforts to protect the homeland and our efforts to go after isis and these terrorist groups at the root. i think it is important to remember who the enemy is. we always had a saying in our office as prosecutors that are job was to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. our enemy is not words, no problem saying the word islamic extremism, i said before in allstate again. i don't see again. i don't see this is our enemy, what words and words people and

use. i don't see our enemy is our muslim community. i see it my own my own state dozens of police officers coming from somali community or muslim who do everything they can to fight off the extremism and make sure that our community is safe. i see muslim serving in the military. i see muslim congressmen including my own and one of the witnesses that senator cruise called for his hearing this week actually went after that congressman. he implied that he was somehow affiliated with this when in fact, he, he is on the isis kill list. he right, he is on the isis kill list because he has stood up against this extremism. i just think that when we look at this we cannot indict an entire religion, an entire community. those are the innocence. the the innocence. the innocence other refugees and immigrants that are in this case. they are the people we protect and there the people we work with to go after this evil.

i will note that the fbi director james comay has said the notion that the u.s. is anti-muslim is part of isis narrative, and other terrorist groups. david betrays has had the ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful and lasting. of this a policy these concepts are totally counterproductive. whether they are making our country safe in their compound the already great terrorist danger to our citizens. i do not say this naïvely, i want to keep our citizens say. i view this i be this is the number one goal of our government and the number one purpose of our government is to keep her citizen say. that and conclude safe from terrorist. my only question of you is to just comment about this anti-muslim rhetoric muslim rhetoric that we are seeing in an increase in hate crimes and how you charged with our nation security or homeland security differentiate between going after terrorists and extremists and indicting an entire religion? >> i think it is counterproductive to our homeland security efforts to

throw a veil of suspicion over an entire religion. i think that is what the islamic state would like us to do. it would be productive to their efforts to cast their current efforts as islam against the west or islam against christians, or islam against america. they would like would like to see it in those terms. i think that there is a distinction to be drawn between terrorism, violent extremism in the islamic faith which, as you know is a religion of peace. those who follow that faith believe in peace. it is the third or fourth largest religion in the world. it is a diverse religion, it is

as diverse as christianity. there is always a temptation to paint a religion, race, race, or ethnicity with a very broad brush and i think it is counter to our efforts at national security and homeland security to do so. i believe that in this environment as i have said many times, it is imperative that we continue our efforts to build community partnerships with grants, with, with outreach, with partnering with philanthropy and the tech sector. i'm glad there seems to be bipartisan support in this congress for doing so. i think it is imperative that we continue these efforts. >> i really appreciate that. i know in our state we have worked really hard to go after the extremism to indict and convict people that want to aid it or be part of it. at the the same time recognizing that we have some really amazing people from the muslim community that live in our state.

trying to see those differences and balances is part of what we do every single day. i appreciate your your closing was there. thank you. >> thank you. >> i think you for your patience mostly. thank you for answering our questions and when you cannot answer our question you said you would get us answers in writing. thank you for your cooperation. our meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible] , [inaudible conversation]

, [inaudible conversation] , [inaudible conversation] ,. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> while the senate judiciary committee met today, the senate is in recess for the independence day holiday. there are couple of sessions before members a return for legislative business on july six. during the break, senator john mccain stopped today to see a familiar face tweeting this. wonderful visiting my dear friend, senator dole today, truly remarkable american. bob dole retired as a senator from kansas in 1996 serving 27 years. part of that time he was majority leader. attorney general loretta lynch and former

president bill clinton met privately as they crossed paths at a phoenix airport earlier this week. the washington times right the meeting took place as the fbi continues its investigation to democratic presidential nominee, hillary clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. cena democratic leader harry reid and chuck schumer spoke briefly today about the meeting during a briefing on funding for the zika virus. >> all i can say is loretta lynch is one of the most outstanding human beings i've ever known. her ethics is above reproach. no one can ever question her strong feelings about the rule of law and her ethics. i repeat they are the best. now she she is from new york, chuck you may want to -- >> i agree she is an honorable person. she said that nothing about the investigation. >> she has a reputation of being honorable, our republican colleagues have said it. she has said nothing was

discussed related to the investigation. so you have two choices, to say that it did not matter or she is lying. i think it did not matter. i do not think she is fine. >> let me tell you about special rules. hillary clinton has put her soul out working the campaign trail for more than one year now. in spite of the fact that the coke brothers have spent 30,000,000 dollars in money trying to make something out of benghazi which even the republican reports that it amounted to nothing. the email. the e-mail thing is also something drummed up by people trying to denigrate her for years now. she takes questions from press, she is not afraid to answer questions, and look it the other side. you have donald trump. we are satisfied with our candidate. she is a pretty damn good. >> white house press secretary josh harris response to question

about the meeting between bill clinton and attorney general lynch. in addition to the aftermath of the u.k. vote to leave the e.u. and the announcement that transgender person can serve in the military. >> it afternoon everybody. i apologize for being a little more tardy than usual today. i do not have any announcement at the tops we top so we can go straight to questions. >> i just wanted to follow up a little on andrew's -- >> i do not have any additional information about what happened there. i would refer you to the department of defense. obviously the president is always quite content about the safety of our men and women in uniform and it is certainly important that they undertake drills to prepare for a wide range of scenarios. but for exactly what transpired today at gaba, i would refer you to the department of defense. >> do you think this false alarm will become the thing that is more common as people get a little more anxious or worried question marks.

>> again, the president certainly believes in vigilance. he believes that we should be vigilant about protecting our men and women in uniform. so i think there is always risk of that. i think it's important so that authorities can communicate clearly with the community and what the public about what is transpiring. but what's inherent in these situations as it is always chaotic. again it's hard for me to speak to this particular incident because i do not know much about what transpired. >> okay and i want to i want to follow up on what you said yesterday about brexit, -- . .

>> mr. earnest: well, listen, i >> the negative impact it has on the possibility of investment from the u.k. and into europe. i think that is the point the president is trying to make the

>> and >> they will continue to have an enduring economic relationship between the u.k. and europe and the president doesn't want to see that more disrupted than already. the president doesn't want this to cause any more impact on the

economy and will take steps to reduce them. >> does the white house have any reaction? >> i had difficulty keeping up with the candidates for the president of the united states and my ability to keep up with the candidates for prime minister in the u.k. is more limited. i will let him speak for himself. he has no trouble doing that. >> the president raised the question yesterday. just to be very clear, does he think there is a possibility that brexit will not go through? >> i think the president's expectation is that u.k. officials have the best sense of what is happening and u.k. officials have been definitive about the finality of this decision. we have heard people like the

current prime minister, we heard the ambassador from the u.k. to the united states indicate this was a decision made by the british people. there is a lot invested in this election. it isn't like people didn't know this election was occurring. there was a lot of attention and healthy debate around it. so, ultimately it will be in the responsibility of officials in the u.k. and officials in the eu to work together to determine what kind of economic relationship will exist between those two entities in the future. that will be part of the negotiations of the u.k. leaving the eu. it will not end there economic relationship as the president pointed out yesterday. i think it is about half of all u.k. exports go to eu countries. so there is going to be a robust economic relationship there. it is just going to be different

because the u.k. won't have the same kind of access to the common market they have previously enjoyed. but establishing that transition period and determining what the post-brexit economic relationship looks like between the u.k. and eu is important and answering those questions as quickly as possible but in a way that is orderally -- orderly and transparent will help minimize the impact on the global economy over the long term. the president acknowledged there has been this volatility in the short term but how it plays out over the long term will have an impact on the long-term prospects of the global economy. >> the president doesn't believe it is possible to roll back that vote? >> i think the president

believes it is u.k. officials to speak to this and that is exactly what u.k. officials have said. >> does the white house have a reaction at a the attorney general lynch meeting with bill clinton as a time when the doj is overseeing the probe of hillary clinton's e-mail usage? >> i have seen the reports about this and the reports are driven by the answer that attorney general lynch gave herself to this question. i think the bottom line is simply that both the president and the attorney general understand how important it is for the department of justice to conduct investigations that are free of political interference. that has been a bedrock principle of our criminal justice system in this country since our founding. the rule of law is paramount and every american citizen should be held accountable to that rule of law regardless of their

political affilation, regardless of who supports them politically, regardless of what their poll numbers say, and that is a principle the president believes is one that is worth protecting. the reason that is so important is because it prevents erosion in the public confidence in our justice system. this is a principle that attorney general lynch has dedicated her three decades in law enforcement, too. she is certain the u.s. attorney in the district of new york. she has her own first-hand experience in conducting public corruption cases. she did that -- she protected the public trust by prosecuting individuals in both parties who -- where there is evidence

to indicate they may have violated the public trust. this is what earned her strong bipartisan support who she was nominated for the job. she has continued that work in the attorney general's office in a variety of ways including a recent announcement about medicaid fraud and her effort to root out corruption in one of the most influential athletic associations in the world. she understands that investigations should be conducted free of political interference and consistent with the facts. investigators should be guided by the facts and evidence and that is what should support their conclusions. she has made clear that is the expectation she has for the way this investigation should be conducted. the president has made clear that is consistent with his

expectations about how this should be handled. i also think that is consistent when the american public's expectation about how this should be handled. >> given that, is the white house concerned about the appearance even of political position because of that meeting? >> i would not second-guess the way this investigation should move forward or should be handled. >> i am asking you about the meeting between attorney general lynch and bill clinton. >> i wasn't there for the meeting but the attorney general was and was asked a direct question and answered it. i think that is consistent with everybody's expectations. >> my question is about the attorney general. >> well, i guess what i am suggesting is -- she was asked about the directly and answered

the question directly about what exactly transpired. so, you know, she spoke with us. i don't have any insight into the meeting or any insight into the investigation. but the president's view is that this is an investigation that should be conducted free of political interference and the attorney general indicated that is exactly her expectation as well. okay? michele? >> are you saying the white house feels it is fine she had the meeting with clinton and there is no problem with it? >> what i am saying is the president believes the principle of protecting an investigation from political interference is important. the rule of law is paramount and people should be judged by the rule of law without regard to their political affiliation or standing. that is a principle worth protecting and a principle both the attorney general and president are committed to. >> you said she answered

questions about it but if there is a question of impropriety -- does the president have a question for her about this meeting? >> well, i haven't spoken to the president about the particular matter but the president's expectation is this is an investigation that will be guided by the facts not politics. other senior officials are indicating that is a priority for them as well. >> can you talk about how important is for people to see things handled properly so there is no erosion in public c confidence. democrats are saying the optics and they should have known better. you are talking about the potential of erosion and confidence.

doesn't this have the potential to do that? >> i think what should give people confidence is the 30-year career attorney general lynch has in keeping the public's trust and making sure she continues to be an effective advocate for the rule of law and for the fair administration of justice. she has done that throughout her career, she has done that in the office of the attorney general, and again, when it comes to appearances she was asked directly about the meeting and answered the question very directly. what impact that may have on the investigation i will not comment on because i don't want to be in the position of second-guessing an investigation i haven't been briefed on. >> we are not talking about the investigation itself. >> you are asking about the potential impacts this has on

the investigation and i will not talk about it. >> you said the appearance could lead to erosion of public confidence in that process. that doesn't mean the process is contaminated but if you seem satisfied with what the attorney general said about the meeting why won't you say you are okay with the meeting? >> when i was talking about the erosion of the public trust i said public trust would be eroded if it people were not making an effort to make it clear that these investigations should not be influenced by politics and the attorney general, director of the fbi, other senior officials at the department of justice, and the president of the united states indicated the rule is paramount and people should be subject to the rule of law without regard to political standing or party

or poll numbers. that is a principle we should all subscribe to and the president, attorney general, and director of the fbi all do. >> just to be clear, you are not saying then that the president or the white house is fine with the meeting having happened the way it did? >> i did not attend the meeting, but attorney general lynch did, and she has spoken directly to how the meeting came about and what was discussed. >> we are talking optics here. not the content. just the optics. i hate that word but the appearance. you are okay with the fact that this meeting has raised that question? are you concerned that appearance -- >> i will let the attorney general speak to her meetings. but what is paramount in the mind of the president is a commitment to the rule of law and commitment to insuring justice is administered without

regard to political affiliation or statement. just justin? [inaudible question] >> listen, this something the cia director has talked about. i don't are any new information to share or additional updated intelligence assessment to offer from here. but when the director was talking about this yesterday he indicated the attacks quote bear the hallmarks of isis'. i think that is an indication of what has been assessed thus far but obviously that is not a definitive analysis. u.s. officials are certainly using all of the information and all of the tools to learn as much as we can about this

particular situation. useful information we will share with nato allies, the turks, if they conduct this investigation. i don't mean to leave you under the impression we are not interest in it. we are keenly interested in understanding what happened but this is an investigation that is being led by the turks and we stand with them as they conduct this investigation and take the steps that are necessary to safeguard the country and their citizens. [inaudible question] >> i don't have additional

actions to privy. but what i will reiterate is how important a role the turks have played in our counter isil coalition and that is everything from taking steps to more effectively close their border with syria, to giving u.s. coalition military pilots access to military instillations inside of turkey that makes our military operations against isis in syria more effective. turkey plays an important role and is a valuable member of the coalition. you will recall it wasn't long ago you were all asking pointed questions about why turkey wasn't more involved in our effort against isis and since that time we have seen the turks become more active, more cooperative and more effective in supporting efforts to degrade and destroy isil. >> i heard the announcement

yesterday of the president going down to north carolina. can you talk a little bit about the significance of north carolina? is it an indication the president, clinton and democrats, are now kind of playing offense and defense because it is traditionally a republican state. >> yeah, listen, for the electoral strategy of the campaign i will defer you to the clinton commission. the president did win the state of north carolina in 2011. he was the first democrat to do so. the president held the democratic convention in charlotte, north carolina in 2012 when running for re-election and that is an indication of the political support the president retains in that state. so he obviously is proud of all

that support. but how this factors into secretary clinton's campaign strategy i would refer you to her operation. >> one more bit on the president's remarks yesterday when talking about politicians starting to talk about popu -- and he said some of the views supported by trump were xenophobea or worse and i am wondering what the worst is. i think it is racism obviously. so the president believes these qualities are racist and why he won't say that?

or will he say trump's policies are racist? >> look, i think the president's words speak clearly for themselves. i don't think i will elaborate on them at great lengths. the president also noted that this kind of rhetoric was tenable. and the reason he used that word is the president believes the policies being pursued by this administration are the most effective in advancing the interest of middle class families across the country. and the president spoke in terms of our effort to regulate wall street, to reform the health care system and make sure more americans have access to affo affordable health care. these are policies the president

made with middle class families and those trying to get to the middle class in mind. he made these decisions and set them as priorities with the american people in mind even though those kinds of steps have been regarded with some controversy by those at the top. by those with the most influence in washington, d.c. and those with the most influence on wall street. you might even call them the elite. that is why the president believes it is cynical to suggest that opposing those kinds of policy is somehow in the best interest of the american people. it is not. so, for somebody who ran on the campaign platform that was rooted in hope, labeling

something cynical, i think, should be viewed as a pretty harsh criticism. >> the implication is there has been a call before supporting new policies that would help -- what you are really saying is the use of risk language the president believes donald trump is using racist language for electoral gain but perhaps it isn't racist. >> this is rooted in the idea there are people who have opposed for political reasons policies that this administration has put forward that have obviously benefited the american people. 20 million americans, 20 million more, have access to coverage

now. our economy has grown and became more stable after wall street reform went into effect. these are just two examples. the president talked about the auto industry yesterday as an example of this. these were policies opposed for partisan reason by republicans even though they have had significant and well-documented benefits for the american people. sfroe partisan reason to oppose those policies -- so for -- and put forward -- republicans haven't put forward alternatives but saying they are oppose today the ideas pause they are populus is cynical and not true. that is the point the president is making. plenty of other people have raised concerns about what

others have described as racially tinged remarks on the campaign trail. those are other people's words but not a word the president chose. i think the president chose, as you noted, the words carefully. joe? >> the president named himself and bernie sanders as populus but didn't name secretary clinton as populus. does he believe she is a populus and i am wondering why her name was left out. >> i think the point the president was trying to make is again when it comes to a fair evaluation of the policies champion by this administration and the impact they had on the american people i think the president is suggesting people who are looking to apply the

populism label could apply it to the administration because they benefit the american people even though criticized by the elite harshly. that is a fair analysis of what has been happening. and the point is, the reason the president site cited senator sanders is there are instances or policy areas where senator sanders recommends going even further. that is different than the arguments made by some republicans to go in the opposite direction. that is why the president believes it is cynical for those

who want to go in the opposite direction to describe themselves as populus. when it comes to secretary clinton, i will let her speak to herself to describe her own philosophy. but, again, my guess is given the fact he is an outspoken advocate for building on the progress our country has enjoyed under president obama's leadership that you could fairly apply that label to her, too. but that is something her team should speak to. mark? >> josh, what is the self-described plan spontaneous

or has he been waiting for the opportunity to advance on the issues of populism? >> i noticed the president did take out a pen and start making notes to himself while other leaders were talking and i would assume that is where something prompted him to think about this. this was something the president delivered -- i don't think this is the first time the president had thought about it. but something in the context of the discussion at the news conference had returned him to this thinking and he jotted down notes in the book and took advantage to share at the end of the news conference. >> do you think there might be more rants in the pipeline? >> considering we have another six and a half months to go before the end of the presidency i think it is likely we are all going to get to enjoy at least one more.

>> he said he feels liberated at this point in his presidency to say things he might not have been willing to say four years earlier. is that right? >> yeah, look, i think there is a certain amount of freedom that politici politicians enjoy when they are not on the ballot. but what i think is true is the president has a well-earned reputation for being blunt, candid and speaking his mind. he has his own style for doing so that is dismissed as props i propsorial but this is something the president has done throughout this presidency. as someone who chronicles the metrics of the presidency as carefully as you i bet there are a number of ticks under the spread of the rant column.

>> what can you tell us about plans for signing the puerto rico bill? will there be a signing ceremony? >> as you saw from the state that we put out last night we are obviously pleased that the senate has finally completed the bipartisan effort to give puerto rican officials to authority to deal with their significant financial problems. this will have an impact on the more than three million americans living in puerto rico. there is a looming deadline tomorrow so i expect the president will sign this into law shortly after receiving it. i don't know if that will allow us time to organize a signing ceremony. but we will keep you posted and let you know. >> what is he doing today in >> the president has a number of

internal meetings today. his schedule is lighter today because yesterday was so impacted. >> what do you think of the chance of four more years of a foreign parliament? >> i noticed that, too. >> did he notice? >> yes, i happen sure he did. i was -- from the floor i was unable to see his reaction. i am not aware of plans the president has plans to run for prime minister of canada. >> or retire there? >> as lovely as ottawa was yesterday i think the president prefers a warmer climate. alex? >> yesterday the president pushed back to weigh in on politics with the prime minister of canada and said when he is abroad it is not his job to

weigh in on domestic politics. but the president gave the self-described rant and talked about the need not to rebuild walls. didn't the president bring american politics himself on to the floor? >> i think the context in which a lot of these questions were asked yesterday were a broader question of the electorate. there are questions raised about the brexit vote say about voter sentiment in the united states and that is legit. it has an impact on the 2016

election but also on american values and the things the president has been fighting for the last seven and a half years he has been in the white house. i think it is impossible to separate the two is my point. so while there might be some who would say the president was taking on the arguments of the 2016 election what is also true is the president is taking on arguments that have been raised about the core american values this president deeply believes in. >> and i don't think the president got to answer this question yesterday about will he be offer a full endorsement of cpt to her supporters? any change he is going to give directly to secretary clinton's force?

>> i don't have an update on the remarks. i think the president is going to make the case secretary clinton and he agree on every issue but i do think he will make a persuasive case about how they spent their careers fighting for the same values and priorities. the president also put those american families at the center of his domestic policy making agenda and secretary clinton does the same thing. doesn't mean they agree on every issue. when it comes to values and priorities that will be

important. >> that is a big division. i am wondering would the president, if the democratic platform is tasked with language that is explicitly opposing ttp would that change the president's plan or attendance at the convention? >> you are asking hypothetical because the platform hasn't been finalized but joani don' i don'e any changes >> on the attack in istanbul, you said you were not sure if this was isis. where is the uncertainty about that at this point? >> what i am relaying, ron, is there is intelligence testing being conducted and we are trying to learn what happened and what individuals are responsible for this.

i don't have a lot of insight to share what we know. >> where there is the uncertainty, is it safe to say there has not been an american-u.s. response to what happened directly? nothing has changed on the battlefield? or has something changed on the battlefield? >> this provides a good opportunity to talk about what is happening on the battlefield. >> no, i mean in the last 48 hours since the attack. has there been something that has -- has there been a response or not? >> i think we have seen tremendous progress that the united states and coalition partners are making against isil in iraq and syria. there was the announcement by the iraqi central government they had succeeded in driving fighters out of fallujah and this is a large priority of the

coalition in part because of the location to baghdad. this was done more swiftly than experts expected. >> that was pre-istanbul. >> this was a long-standing effort. the other thing that has happened as iraqi security forces were working to clear fallujah the united states coalition partners identified a large convey of isil vehicle ins anbar who appeared to recently have left fallujah and it allowed the united states and coalition partners to carry out strikes that resulted in a total of more than 150 vehicles being destroyed. that is a pretty substantial indication of the kind of pressure isil is under. and the success we are having in

developing targets and acting against them in short order in a way that is having a positive impact on isil. >> what about the report the united states and russia are going to cooperate in syria? is that true? >> i think what has been true for a long time, ron, and this is even true before the russian military build up in syria lastal fall, and that is we talked a lot about how there was an opportunity for russia to more effectively work with the united states and our 65 coalition partners to go after isis and extremist in syria. that is true from the beginning. the reason that opportunity has not been capitalized on is that russia has been more focused on using their military might to prop up assad than go after extremist. the russian strategy claims they

are concerned about extremist inside syria but the steps they are taking to prop up the assad regime and make the political transition more difficult makes it harder to deal with the extremist threat inside syria. >> is there an agreement between the united states and russia to cooperate militarily in syria? >> we have not seen the russians, and this is again, i have been saying this for more than a year, we have not seen the russians demonstrate a commitment to using their military might against isil. instead they have been much more focused on propping up the assad regime. and that is a problem for a variety of reasons because propping it up makes it more difficult to address the root cause of the system. they have an internal conflict that they have been unable to explain or resolve for a year now.

>> i understand that realm, john. but you are familiar about the agreement that have been reached. >> i saw one report in the post this morning that alluded to all of this. what i am saying is that i don't have details about the behind the scenes diplomacy that is part of our open line of communication with the russians. but what hasn't changed is our basic approach to this situation which is we would welcome a russian commitment to working more closely with the coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. i think the 65 members of our counter isil coalition would welcome that as well. the problem is russia is most interested in propping up assad than going after isil. until that changes we said it is hard to imagine coordinating our

military efforts. what we have been doing thus far is deconflicting our efforts to provide for the safety of our military pilots primarily operating over syria. but what is preventing us from being able to more effectively coordinate military is what the russians have been militarily doing is propping up assad and not going after isil. >> the report in the military and the navy sailors was critical of the americans. there were a number of officers and others disciplined. what is the white house reaction to that? the narrative coming out of that at the time seemed much more positive and supportive of the reaction to the u.s. military. >> well, i think the immediate aftermath of this incident was

the release -- relief of the safe return of our soldiers. but what the navy has said is they were going to conduct an investigation to determine what happened exactly. they released the results of that investigation earlier today and i think a number of navy personal who were reprimanded for the way they -- for their role in the incident. for the details of all that i would refer you to the navy. [inaudible question]

>> for any recommendations the navy has i am sure they will be considered by the department of defense. i am not aware of the substance of any recommendations they made. kevin? >> thanks josh. can you give me more information about the iraqi airstrikes that wiped out a number of foreign fighters. did the president order that strike? >> this is what i was alluding to with ron. my understanding is iraqi security forces have been working over the last several days to definitively clear fallujah?

what occurred last night is that moving and coalition pilots detected the movement of two unusually large conveys moving away from the direction of fallujah through the desert of anbar province. we talked before about how early on in this campaign we recognized isil changed tactics and we saw footage of them moving in large conveys across iraq as they were taking large territory in 2014. as soon as the u.s. military pilots got involved they were taking strikes against the convey and isil changed their tactics in response and started

moving in much smaller numbers to prevent less of a target to coalition pilots. what happened last night is u.s. coalition pilots spotted two large conveys and they took strikes against it and that resulted in the destruction of more than one one vehicle and the other convey identified more than 50 vehicles destroyed. what this underscores, i think, is the success that the united states and coalition partners are having in integrating our intelligence and military capabilities and being able to quickly spot these targets, identify them and take action against them is frankly harder

and i think isis is under pressure and that is part of the strategy. we are expanding the policy of iraqi forces so we can apply maximum pressure against isil tarning targets and saw the benefit last night. >> success against isil and the

taliban seem to be enjoying a bit of resurgence. can you tell me about the attack on cadets in afghanistan and what you know about that? >> i got a briefing on that earlier today. my understanding is extremist in afghanistan did target some cadets from the afghan security forces. i refer to afghans for more specific assessment. i think this is an indication of something we have acknowledge. what is important is the continued commitment of the

united states and nato and other international contributors to the afghanistan government and security forces. the united states and coalition partners have been partners and it is important we support them militarily and economically as they seek to rebuild the institutions of the country but also strengthen the security forces in the country. >> the review of the 911 commission, 28 pages, and a clearer understanding by the end of june we have something the american people can take a look at. have you gotten the update on what is happening with that? has that changed? >> this is a reminder that june 30th and they indicated they

would have the results of the study by the end of june. i think it is concluded for appropriate for release. >> i want to follow up on everybody's question about optics. would you agree acknowledge you have on the one hand a candidate, a former colleague you endorsed, talking about sekt clinton who the president endorsed. and his appointed attorney general is having calls for her

husband. does it make him worried the fact it is an open and partial process if the investigation continues and her conduct regardi regarding? >> i think the question you are asking is legitimate and the question asked of attorney general lynch was legitimate and that is why i think it was important for her to give the answers she did. i think it is important for her to continue to demonstrate her commitment to a principle she stood up for her in three decades in public service. and that is the question of the rule of law and that is important without regard to political affiliation or who

supports us politically or does nlt. we are all subject to the rule of law and it is important they are conducted consistent in mind. what they do have to do is determine if there is an ex planation required but it important that is newt root in political facts but in evidence. that is the way to insure

justice. >> i read in the social hanging out, if you will, between the attorney general and former president, that there is nothing there and nothing to worry about. should we read that much into it? >> i think it is entirely appropriate for journalist like you to ask the attorney general what she talked about and she answered that directly on the record as soon as it was asked. right here. yeah, and whatever else. so i think that is an

appropriate question. that is subject to political law. >> it is important there might be an operator announcement on location specific? >> i don't have those details. the foundation the president and the first lady have created will handle announannouncement they o make. pam? >> you mention the importance of training and vigilance on military bases but does it make sense to hold an active shooter drill so soon after a terrorist

attack? >> i don't the details of the way these kind of drills are scheduled so i would refer you to the department for that. but the president believes it is important to conduct drills that insure the safety of the men and women in our uniform. >> and on gun control, speaker ryan is going to hold a vote on a bill to prevent suspected terrorist from buying guns. does that give you hope something like that might be able to pass? >> i think the details are rather important. we saw claims from people like senator cornin that the legislation he put forward would address the question many americans raised about the wisdom of allowing people on the no-fly list.

the president made this a priority. if is too dangerous to board a plane it should be too dangerous to buy a gun and that i think as a commonsense notion and i think we believe this should get a vote. >> do you think public pressure is kind of moving in that direction on members of congress? >> i hope so. there is ample public support to indicate a large amount of americans support these commonsense steps because it will make america safer. it is a commonsense proposition and i am not surprised to see

strong public support and not just the majority of democrats some polls showing the majority of republicans and gunowners support that approach to making our communities a little safer from gun violence. we will see the details of what the representatives are willing to consider but it is a commonsense notion and congress should act, too. gregory? >> back in march, lisa promised a report on the billion airstrikes and can you give us transparency on what is holding that up? >> obviously what the national security team and intelligence community is attempting to do is break old habits. and bringing transparency to

this element of our national security strategy and our counterterrorism strategy is difficult. but i can tell you that work is ongoing and has been ever since, frankly even before and i would suspect we will have additional information about that. >> we heard questions about the 2016 human trafficking report that the secretary john kerry released today. here is a preview from secretary kerry who like'ns human trafficking to modern day slavery. >> when we talked about human

trafficking we are talking about slavery. modern-day slavery that still today claims more than 20 million victims on any given time. and all 20 million are people, just like everybody here. they have names, they have or had families in many cases, and they are enforced to endure a hell, a living hell unemployi i times no human being should have to experience. violent extremist are forced to find a temporary safe haven and i add temporary. the atrocity are rampant. a 34-year-old survivor recalls

approaching a captor in syria, a member of daish, and she pleaded to halt the excessive rape of a 12-year-old girl telling the terrorist she is just a little girl. he replied no, she is not a little girl, she is a slave. >> this weekend on c-span's city tour, along with our comcast cable partners we will explore the literary life of provo, utah. a proprietor who has been collecting books from all over the year showcases his finds including the thomas pane book. >> he went to robert bell to get it printed and wanted the proceeds to buy soldiers mitt.

payne lowered the price and allowed anyone to print it. >> and jay spencer talks about anti-mormanism in america since its founding and the origins of the animosity. >> the latter day saints fit in that because they are a religious minority who over time has figured in visible ways in the debate about religion. ...

you know that brings life to these bones. j. spencer bloom and african university meyer -- it'd began setting up family communities with 33 mormon families establish a settlement in provo in 1849 papers we can watch c-span city tour of provo utah on c-span2 spoke tv on sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> coming up tonight on c-span2 defense secretary ashton carter on lifting the ban on trained gender service -- transgender servicemembers.