penetrate the gate into the convention site, our security site, our people were there and they acted promptly and swiftly. these individuals were arrested. these are things you don't always read about. you don't always hear about. you know, if there is something bad that happens, everyone here reports that. but i think it's important for the american public to know and to appreciate whether it's homeland security personnel, our law enforcement personnel, our men and women in uniform, and u.s. military every day there is somebody working hard, very often, putting their lives on the line to protect the american public and to protect our homeland. that is something that i have continually stressed in my time as secretary. today we will release a new video that -- i think two minutes or less sets out all the missions of department of homeland security and what we do. it's my effort to spruce up our

image a bit, and i released it to our work force yesterday. so many people went online to look at the new video. we crashed the system. we had to start over again. but it will be released publicly today. i hope everybody here will take a look at it. with that, david, back over to you. >> thank you, sir. >> i'm going to do the ceremonial softball opening, then we'll go to brian bennett, julie davis, julie edwards, mark thompson, aaron kelley, and john stanton to start. >> a long line up. >> that should keep us going for awhile. i want to ask you how the threat has evolved during your time in office and what further changes you think are needed at dhs to deal with it. you had a fascinating conversation, i thought a fascinating conversation with the "times" last week. you talked about the rise of isil and the rise of terror-inspired attack where the

operative may not have met another single other member. never received a direct the order. you said that makes more a for complicated threat environment that is harder to detect. how has it changed? what needs to happen? >> when i was at the department of defense as the general council in 2009 and 2012, our counter terrorism efforts were largely dedicated to taking the fight to the enemy in the places where they train, where they have headquarters, where they plan, where they equip. in yemen, somalia, and elsewhere. taking the fight directly to them. we still are. and syria and iraq we've opened up a new front in libya, with as everybody knows. and so the effort had been and still is degrade the enemy, destroy the enemy, where they

live, where they work, wherever they rear their heads. to prevent the terrorist-directed attack of the style of 9/11 and subsequent attacks and attempted attacks. so the classic example, the most prominent example of the terrorist-directed attack is 9/11, of course. you also had the attempted underwear bomber december 25, 2009. you had the attempted times square car bomber. you've had the shoe bomber, richard reid. these are all in the category of terrorist-directed attacks. operatives, the package bomb plot. operatives sent from overseas to try to infiltrate our borders, our air space with a terrorist attack. now we live in an environment where we have to be concerned about terrorist-directed attacks, but also

terrorist-inspired attacks. terrorist-inspired attacks make for a more complicated world because the terrorist-inspired operative very often self-radicalizes and self-radicalizes in secret based on something that they see or read on the internet, social media through terrorist publications. and that type of threat is harder to detect by our intelligence community and our law enforcement community. and could strike in multiple different communities across our country. like orlando or chattanooga or other places that we have seen -- bernardino. so -- and just within a category of terrorist-inspire d -- we hae

a category now that the fbi often uses terrorist-enabled attacks, which is something, perhaps, a step up from terrorist-inspired attacks. we now have a phrase we use called terrorist-validated attacks. isil may take credit for an attack after the actor has struck. so it makes for a more complicated homeland security, national security environment and response. sew militarily we continue to take the fight to isil and al qaeda overseas. our law enforcement, particularly the fbi, continues very aggressive counter terrorism effort here at home. we continue to be concerned around aviation security and threats to aviation security and as many of you know, beginning about two years ago, i directed we step up our aviation security efforts. i'm sure more people will be

interested in asking about that. we have hardened security. we have added security to the visa waiver program. we're doing a better job, in my judgment, of monitoring the travel of suspicious individuals and preventing people from getting on airplanes who should not be allowed to come to this country. here at home, in this environment, there is a role for the public to play. we don't, too often, ask the public for help in our efforts. but here is an instance where i believe we should and we need to. there's a role for the public to play in our homeland security efforts. if you see something, say something is more than a slogan. saying something, if a member of the public sees something, has made a difference and does make a difference.

i read about this routinely. so increased public awareness, public vigilance about a suspicious package, suspicious behavior, suspicious purchases can make a difference, and last but not least, given the current environment we're in, this is the reason we have really stepped up our cde efforts, as we refer to it inside the beltway. counter extremism measures. i have visited muslim communities to ask are for their help in homeland security by stressing it's everyone's homeland. it's homeland, too, your public safety, your families, your friends, and if they see someone heading in the wrong direction,

self-radicalizing heading toward violence, say something. not necessarily to law enforcement. but say something, and we've made the request and plea to become involved in our overall homeland security efforts by building bridges to american muslim communities. we can talk more about that, but in my judgment, it is among our most significant efforts in this current environment we're in. so we're doing a number of things that requires a government approach, and i hope the next administration, whoever it is, will continue in these efforts on this path. i think it's vital to our national security and our homeland security given where we are. >> i'm going to bite down hard on my finger so as to not ask the follow up question about trump. instead i'm going to brian bennett. follow my own rule and go to

brian bennett. [ inaudible question ] cybersecurity and elections. so when the dnc was hacked, initially they decided not to go directly to the fbi and dhs. they hired a private security firm to look at the attack and mitigate it. then those e-mails appeared online, and the fbi got involved. there's also a question of a number of voting machines in counties that are electronic and digital and some are connected to the internet. i wanted to get a sense from you of what the vulnerabilities are. what your assessment of the dnc hack is, and should the government be looking at elections as a piece of critical infrastructure, and -- or should the government try to stay out of it as much as possible? >> it sounds like brian has been in our internal deliberations lately. but -- >> hopefully not hacking into

them. anyway. >> a couple of things. first, as everybody knows, the fbi is investigating the dnc hack. we are not, at this point, prepared to attribute it to a particular actor or actors. that investigation continues. separate and apart from that, this is not a comment on the dnc hack in particular, but a general observation. this is something that i preach generally. first, employee education and awareness about the hazards of phishing. everybody in this room, i suspect, at your respective employers has received an e-mail that is an attempted spear phishing. and simply by not opening the

e-mail or the attachment to the e-mail looks suspicious to you, or you don't recognize, can make a huge difference. this is a general comment. the most devastating intrusive attacks by the most sophisticated actors often originate with a simple act of spear phishing. employee and employer awareness and education can raise that bar and make a huge, huge difference. in dhs, for example, we run exercises where we'll send employees e-mails like "free washington redskins tickets. click here" and the excited redskins fan clicks on the attachment, they're told to report at a certain time and place to pick up their free redskins tickets, and they get a cybersecurity lecture, instead.

so there's that. observation and comment number two. whether in government or the private sector if there's an incident call us right away. contact the department of homeland security right away. to get us in this there early. whether without a private security expert or with a private cybersecurity expert. one of the -- i thought that last week's ppd 41 on cybersecurity in a clever way clarifies the roles of the different federal agencies in cybersecurity, and delineates between threat response and asset response. threat response is responding to a crime and asset response is fixing and patching the vulnerability. so in the simplest of terms, i am the fireman and jim comey is

the cop. you call one or both of us and hopefully do so very, very soon after the incident. the third observation, and this is not a comment about the most recent dnc event, but there's a lot that goes into atry bugs. there's a lot in terms of the investigative process and a lot of factors that go into at aattribution in or without the cybersecurity context. those are my thoughts. on the election process, we are actively thinking about election and cybersecurity now. the issue with the election

process is, as you know, there's no one federal election system. there are some 9,000 jurisdictions across this country involved in election process. so there's a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate and contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes, and reporting votes. states, cities, counties who all have their own way of doing business down to the nature of the ballots, the nature of how votes are tabulated. so after the 2000 election, congress passed ed and there wa commission created dedicated a the national level to the security around the election processes across the country. that commission actually, i think, did a lot of good and

raised the bar quite significantly. but there is more to do. so the nature of cyber threats has evolved since 2002. since 2003. and so i do think that we should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process is critical infrastructure, like the financial sector. like the power grid. the election process contributes to -- there's a vital national interest in our election process. so i do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure. which has several implications. it becomes very much part of our focus. there are some short term/long-term things i think we

should do to bolster security around the election process. i'm considering communicating with election officials across the country about best practices in the short term. there are some best practices that exist, and i think we need to share those best practices with state and local election officials soon, and then i think there are probably longer term investments we need to make in the cybersecurity of our election process. i think that there are various different points in the process that we have to be concerned about. so this is something that we're focussed on at the moment. >> pl"politico." >> since the decision from the ninth circuit. held that dhs most quickly release most minors who come in illegally with their families

but it has no full authority over -- i'm sorry, dhs still has full authority to detain the parents in those families. what will be the impact? >> i'm going to sound like a lawyer here. i have read the ninth circuit's decision, and i have read the judge's decision in the district court. what the ninth circuit basically did was agree with the district judge's reading of the 1997 settlement agreement to cover accompanied as well as unaccompanied children. but the ninth circuit said that the settlement does not cover the parents of the kids. by the settlement there's no authority to tell us we must release a parent. so on an operational level, we

are going to -- we're looking now at what impact it has. what judge said in our ruling last year, will we're abiding by, is that the department has added flexibility consistent with the toerms of settlement agreement in times of an influx. we've been, by the standard of 1997 in an influx for some time now, and so what we've been doing is ensuring the average length of stay at these facilities is 20 days or less. we're meeting that standard. we will look at -- we are looking at whether to change the practice in any way in light of the ninth circuit ruling, but we're complying with the judge's

original order, and we've also improved the conditions at the federal -- at the family residence centers that we have. and i think that these centers are important both to make informed decisions about who is a risk of flight, who is not. to process individuals as they cross the border illegally. to make certain assessments about health, and that we need to continue the practice. the practice has reformed considerably since two years ago when we first opened these things up. but i think we need to continue the practice so we're not just engaging in catch and release. >> we're going to go julie davis from the "new york times."

[ inaudible question ] >> 10,000 syrian refugees this year. obviously it involves a more rapid process of vetting and interviewing in the whole process that generally takes two years, but the president made it clear he wants it more quickly, in this case. i wanted to ask sort of what challenges it has posed for you at the department. whether it's put strains on the agency, and what you have learned in the last several months about how to do this and do it while keeping the strict vetting standards in place. also, have you caught up at all with jeff far? >> who? >> the syrian boy you met in turkey. >> thank you for asking about him. i hope you saw my little movie. first of all, the process is still a very thorough, time-consuming process for each refugee and applicant. on average it's been 18 to 24 months, and we have not shortcut

the process. in fact, we have added security checks to the process for refugees from certain countries, which i can't really get into publicly. we've actually added security checks to the process. what we have also added are a lot of resources to the process to meet the submcommitments we give the world refugee crisis. so that has meant a surge in refugeeofficers. to the agency's credit, a lot of personnel and uscis have volunteered to the circuit and go to turkey and jordan to screen refugees in the mit of the crisis. a lot of people have volunteered, bagged their bags, and go overseas to help with the effort. the state department personnel, as well. this is a joint state department

dhs effort. we have expanded the processing capability. i personally expected it myself when i was in turkey in march. so we have surged a lot of resources to the process. and there are a lot in the pipeline. so last time i looked, i think we were now up to over 7,000 refugees, syrian refugees that have physically resettled in this country this fiscal year. there are some several thousand approved and waiting the physical resettlement into the country. i believe we will make the commitment to resettle 10,000 refugees this fiscal year, which is a significantly larger number than last year. i think last year it was only about 1600. but that has been through the surge of a lot of resources and a lot of hard work without

shortcutting the process. so that's where we are. >> and we're going to go to julia edwards from "reuters." >> i had a few immigration questions. in january you did a surge operation on family unites and central americans. in may it started to look like more of a trickle. has become the new normal to carry out operations that will target family units as well as people who came as unaccompany the children and since turned 18? >> no, it's not a new normal. we enforced a law consistent with our priorities, and if someone is a priority for removal, they've been apprehended at the border, crossing the border illegally. they have been ordered removed by an immigration court. they have exhausted their appeals. they have no claim for relief

and have not qualified for humanitarian relief under our laws, then we have to send them home. we have to send them back. and that is a message that i've consistently sent and that's what we're doing on a daily -- weekly basis. we have something like 15 to 18 flights of my graigrants a week to central america that we send back. people who have come here. and so we don't have open borders, and we have to enforce the law consistent with our priorities. is that pleasant? not necessarily. i've spent a lot of time in south texas at our processing centers with a lot of kids. it's not pleasant to send

somebody back to central america. we have laws. we have a process by which someone can qualify for asylum. we've also, as i'm sure you know, expanded upon our refugees screening capability in central america. the announcement, i guess, two weeks ago. we believe people should have a safe, alternate path to come into the country. there was a story in the times that somehow this is a paradox. on the one hand we're sending people back. on the other hand, we're trying to expand the ability by which they come here. it's not a paradox. there's a right way and a wrong way, and as long as we have border security, as long as our borders are not open borders, there is a wrong way. we have to enforce the law consistent with our priorities. so that's where we are.

>> we're going to do to marc thompson from "time magazine." [ inaudible question ] >> you said paris cannot prevail if the people refuse to be terrorized. you cited oklahoma city and the boston marathon bombing, you cited 9/11 in lower manhattan as examples of resilience. but those were pretty painful retail ways of learning resilience. what can national leaders like you do on a more wholesale sense to make the american public more resilient to these sporadic terror attacks? >> good question. first of all, whenever i deliver a public message about threats

we face, i don't believe we ought to simply scare people and instill a lot of fear, and to predict the inevitably of the next terrorist attack. i think we have an obligation to accurately describe the environment in which we exist, which is why i modified our system last december. because we're not using it. in this environment, where you don't necessarily have a specific, credible threat, quote, unquote, it could still be thes that can we're concerned about the next home-grown extremist attacking someplace. we changed the end task to more accurately describe to the public and the press what we see and what we're concerned about. coupled with that, i think we have ab obligation to lay out all the things for the public, for public safety, for homeland

security. in aviation security, border security, prospect foreign terrorist travel, our cb efforts, our law enforcement efforts. so i believe that we should accurately inform the public about what is going on and always tell the public about the hard work of people that are contributing to our homeland security. in terms of the publics' resilience, on a national level, there is, i think, a way of looking at homeland security on a very personal level. very often i'll be asked the question that on the surface is a rather simplistic question. is it safe for me to send my teenage kids to europe for the

summer? people will ask me or some of my colleagues a very basic question. when it comes down it, that's what people really care about. i happen to believe that people are less concerned about a lot of political back and forth. is it safe for me to send my kids overseas? is it safe for me to go to a particular public event or a particular public place? is it safe for me to keep taking public transportation? so i think we have to continue to reinforce for the public that, yes, it is safe to do these things subject to whatever state department travel advisories there overseas, and subject to whatever message you get from me, but be aware and be vigilant. i have a lot of the confidence

in public resilience in response to an attack or disaster. that does not mean that we should become numb to this and kind of accept it as the new normal as business as usual. i categorically reject that. what is regrettable to me, though, is that our security posture, in general it more hunkered down than it used to be. if you were in aspen last week, i think you may have heard me say that 50 years ago this summer i have a photograph of me and my little sister that my dad took. we were taking a tour of the capit capitol. 50 years ago this summer you were able to drive your own car into a public park space about 100 feet from the capitol steps and park there and go inside. which you can't do anymore. aviation security then was a fraction of what it is now.

so that has had to change as a result of the global terrorist threat environment in which we live, regrettably. pennsylvania avenue, in front of the white house is closed, and i don't see it opening any time soon. i think the public understands that and accepts it. i think the public understands and accepts the need for aviation security. but i think we have to, in terms of resilience, be level-headed, accurate, objective about what we see as the global terrorist threat and the threats to the homeland. i always remind the public that this is what we government in doing on your behalf. what we are doing. but there's a role for you to play, too in this current environment.

i cite those examples because i think that's what they are. examples. not unique to boston or new york city. new york city itself is a pretty resilient tough place. people don't panic, but they're examples and i think they're shining examples and models for the rest of the country. >> steve from the washington times. >> i wanted to ask you about countries taking back their d r depd deportees. there's a lot of finish capitol hill. you have 170 days left in your -- in this administration. will you, during that time, invoke the 243-d power you have to have the state department impose visa sanctions and other sanctions on those recacountrie.

cuba is probably the worst offender. why did you all not insist on those talks be part of reestablishing diplomatic relations with cuba? >> two things. first, in terms of 243, don't know yet. we have done a number of things with the state department and n in -- to step up the pressure for them to take those who have been ordered deported back. deportation is repatriation, and repatriation is a two-party transaction. we have seen some progress in our efforts, but in my judgment, not enough. i've had direct conversations with the chinese, for example, about taking back migrants

deported from this country. we saw little bit of progress with the chinese but not enough. that's a continued push and a continued conversation. with cuba, the normalization process is a continuing process, and there's a continuing dialogue. >> we're going to "huffington post." >> i was wondering with tps for syrians, why that was extended to people who have been here or just got here, you know, maybe even a few weeks ago, and why that's not the case for people from, say, honduras where they have to come here before -- >> every tps country is different. the circumstances are different. in my judgment, syria is the perfect example of why tps.

exists. the conditions in that country are such that we shouldn't be sending people back, but there are exceptions to that, by the way. there are exceptions of carve outs and certain categories of migrants who are dangerous and should simply be sent back. so it's not a blanket amnesty, as some people would characterize it. syria, the conditions there are still bad. they're still, you know, the environment in which we originally declared still exists in syria. and so that's why we extended it. it's hard to compare one country to another, but tps is generally granted every 18 months. every 18 months we consider whether to extent it for the class of people for which it was originally extended or we roll back the date and every country,

every circumstance is different. >> moving down the line. peter from "energy wire." >> i want to go back to the cybersecurity and ask about the black energy malware that has been a major piratety of your department. following the ukraine attack, black malware was used to get into those utilities in ukraine. dhs issued the very specific warnings to u.s. utilities about black energy. the series of warnings going back to 2014, actually. you gave the youtiutilities andr critical infrastructure detailed instructions on how to find it. so my question is, has dhs learned how effective those alerts and warnings were. have u.s. utilities been able to find the malware and get rid of it? is it not a report that gets back to dhs? >> first, i'm very pleased by

the fact that our dhs personnel were part of the team that went to the ukraine to investigate the incident there. in general, both as a result of the physical attack on the power grid a couple of years ago, and the incident in japan -- the earthquake there, i think that there was a real wake up call in the industry about securing the grid, securing utilities. about the need to work with and partner with the department of homeland security on cybersecurity, on the security of utilities, or the power grid, and i think we've made a lot of progress. i think there's much more collaboration, more of a partnership in exercises and

we're seeing very good progress there. a lot of utilities have stepped up. ceos of these utilities have participated in our advisory subcommittees and committees. so there's a much better, closer collaboration than there was as recently as maybe four or five years ago. which is quite promising. i don't think this continues to be a work in progress. i have to let my sicybersecurit folks get back to you. >> herb jackson. >> how are you? [ inaudible question ] >> from the state department data, it looks like in july alone 75 people were settled in

jersey city and elizabeth compared to 80 for the three quarters previously statewide. given that sharp increase, do you have any concerns about safety where you live? >> from syrian refugees? no. refug refugees, as i said earlier, admitted after a very thorough, time-consuming process. the reason for the increase in the numbers is because we have increased the resources and the people that go into the vetting process to meet our commitment in the face of the worldwide crisis. in the communities that i've visited, where refugees have been settled in this country, i have been very impressed by how

famili families, community members embrace new refugees that arrive in this country. i recall, for example, community in houston of syrian americans who actively embrace refugees when they arrived and help them get jobs, when they're eligible to get jobs, help them with their language skills, point them in the right direction in terms of friends, and so i've been impressed by the subtle process that occurs once a refugee arrives here. we don't just dump them someplace in the community. they are placed in communities that want to take in refugees. and i think this is something that we should do. consistent with homeland security. consistent with the security. there is a worldwide refugee crisis of millions of people

that are flooding a lot of countries. european countries and a number of us need to, and are stepping up to participate in the resettlement of these refugees. the united states has contributed billions in humanitarian aid in the face of this crisis, but we have traditionally and historically accepted refugees into this country. we should continue to do so. it's part of who we are as a nation. it's part of our tradition. it's part of our immigrant heritage, and refugees have contributed to the strength of this country. so we reject the notion we should shut down the refugee resettlement process and close our doors to the worldwide refugee crisis. it's not who are as a country. >> we go to aaron kelley and "usa today." >> mr. secretary, one thing --

in flying to cleveland you go through the very thorough security process at tsa and getting on amtrak to go to philly there's nothing. they don't check your bags, they don't check you. >> i wouldn't say there is nothing. there's layered security on the inner-city rail that some of the -- much of it is not obvious to the traveler. >> is it, though, still a concern. should there be more done on trains? >> well, train is not like an airplane. a train and a train station is much less confined space. for every major railroad, for every major commuter railroad there's a security force. for amtrak you have amtrak police. for new jersey transit, you have new jersey transit police, you have septa police. you have a police force around

every single rail transit system. we are nationwide in tsa. the tsa is a rail security mission, too. they fight for teams that are involved in responses at rail stations. we have rail safety surges from time to time involving canines, for example, we're acquiring more canines. i do not believe that we should embrace the full extent of aviation security for rail security where everybody has to go through a check point at union station or penn station or 30th street station. there is considerable security around inner-city rail travel, particularly in the northeast, though. a lot of it is unseen. >> we're going to frank from mcclachy.

[ inaudible question ] the same resources in the right way in protecting these individuals. the white house deputy -- >> you got a question or a judgment on your part? >> it's actually the homeland white house homeland security advisory acknowledged itself that current efforts have been insufficient. >> what are you referring to? >> amy pope and the press call. less than 300 people in the cam program, no placement yet in the program that kerry announced in january. there's only a few months left in this administration. why not, as some advocates have proposed cease removals of people from central america >>well, the reason not to do that is we don't have open borders, and if we cease removals, we have a humanitarian

crisis. there would be a surge for the exits if we crease removal. i think we know that. that's one thing. we have not been happy with the numbers, which is why we are expanding the publicity around the existing program. we have expanded the cope of it, the parameters of it. we're very pleased that costa rica has stepped up to be involved in country processing. it's something that very definitely would like to see more of. government is about limits. we have a defined number of asylum screeners, refugee screeners, and a world refugee crisis emanating from the middle east, which we are surging resources to, in addition to the central american issue.

us usciss an organization. with the exception of being veri verified, no appropriated money goings to the refugee resettlement, uscis mission. so we have a finite level of resources we can dedicate to these huge humanitarian situations. through a lot of hard work and a lot of resources, i think we're going to meet the enhanced commitment we made for syrian refugees and worldwide refugees. we've enhanced the worldwide global number 85,000. i think we're going make both. central america is something where we are -- we want to expand upon this. i believe that as long as the push factors exist in central america, we're going to have this problem on the southwest border. no level of border security, no doubling of size at the border patrol. all of these things will not stop illegal migration from

countries as long as a 7-year-old is desperate enough to flee on her own. to travel the entire length of mexico because of the poverty and the violence in her country. so we want to invest in these countries. congress has invest eed $750 million and we want to establish a safe, alternate path. this is a good advice i got two years ago when we were dealing with the crisis then, and somebody said to me you can't just shut the door. you have to provide a safe, legal alternative path. half of number of those who have applied and been accepted we like to say no, which is why we want to expand on it. in government we have finite amount of resources to dedicate to the serioes of problems that we have. it is something we want to do

more. >> john stanton from "buzz feed." on the right. >> i have a two-part question. are you concerned that trump's language around race and religion, as a lot of people have said, is contributing to a rise of violent reactions toward minority communities, and domestic terrorism, is that a concern that you have? and, also -- >> i'm sorry? >> do you have a concern that's feeding domestic terrorism and em bolding people to come out of the shadows and act more aggressively toward minority communities. we've seen the secret service go from just giving protection duty to the candidate, trump, to now enforcing bans on reporters. i want to find out why that decision was made and where you are. are you concerned about first amendment issues there? >> that was a couple of

questions. let me start with the last one. the secret service is dedicated to physical security of their protectees. that's what they do. the secret service is not involved in removal of demonstrators from events, for example. their job is the physical security of the protectee. as long as the physical security of the protectee is not jeopardized, the secret service does not get involved. the issue with press and credentials, you have to ask the secret service specifically around the specific event. but the secret service's mission is the physical security of the protectee. that's it. they don't -- unless it's an nsse with that designation is not the physical security of an

entire event, and so that's their mission. >> i'm not going to comment on anything the candidates for elected office are saying or doing. i will repeat what i said in aspen, that i think it's critical to our homeland security mission that we build bridges to american muslim communities. that we encourage them to participate in our homeland security efforts. and that overheated rhetoric, vilification of american muslims is counter to those efforts. i think that our -- our efforts at community partnerships is vital to our homeland security mission.

in terms of race relations, like the president, i take the long view on race relations. there are setbacks. there are flash points. there are times when race relations have and will become more heated around specific events. but i think it's important for us in this country to always look at the long view. when i was born in 1957, african americans in many parts of this country were second class citizens in fact and in law. today we have a first family that is african american, which in my lifetime as recently as let's say the 19 -- how about the 1988 conventions was unfathomable. for me. that we would have an african american president in my life.

or the number of african american ceos across corporate america, members of congress, mayors and the like, that's progress on one level. there is a whole lot of other progress out there that we need to continue. a lot of people, white and black and multiple other colors, they're having a very difficult time makes ends meet right now. but i take the long view as an african american, as a graduate of morehouse college, steeped in the lessons of martin luther king, my morehouse brother, i take the long view. >> we have about eight people wanting questions. we're not going to get to everybody. but the next person we're going get to is marissa schultz from

"the new york post." >> hello. >> with the lone wolf attacks around the world -- >> yours is one of the papers i read every day. >> appreciate that. keep me employed! with lone wolf attacks across the world and a focus on soft targets. >> "the new york post" loves to call me by my first name, by the way. >> is new york city still considered the number one terrorist target? and with bill bratton's resignation, there has been a lot of focus on the improvements he has made with terrorist funding and training in new york. can you talk a little bit about the terror threat to the city and the security threats it now faces? >> in terms of our grant money from the department of homeland security, new york city, the new york city area is still number one on the list in terms of our risk assessments and the level of support that the city, the tri-state area gets from the department of homeland security for communications equipment, surveillance equipment, support for active shooter training, and the like.

and that should and will continue. grant money funding for local and state efforts is in my view critical. i have been around the country to highlight and support active shooter training exercises, for example. last november, i was in new york city with commissioner bratton. we stood side by side at an active shooter training exercise and an abandoned subway station. on the lexington avenue line, the number 6. to highlight the good work of active shooter training that my department supports, but wasn't just new york city. i did the same thing in louisville, kentucky earlier this year. and so i am a huge proponent of encouraging local law enforcement, local first

responders to train, exercises that are multijurisdictional, multidiscipline for active shooter events that could occur at any moment, at any different type of venue. that's a lot of good work being done. i think it needs to continue. >> gino harlan from the national post. >> one more family detention question for you. largely because of the court cases you were already asked about, the mission and the form of places like dilly and carnes has changed quite a bit over the past few years. given the way that that has morphed, do you feel this is money well spent down there with these companies? and would you ever have ramped up family detention two years ago had you known the outcome and the changes that would happen? >> i think that frcs are a

critical part of border security because we should get a better sense -- we need to have a good sense for who is entering the country. a large component of whose entering the country now are parents who bring their kids. and we have to have a good sense for who these people are. we can make more informed judgments about risk of flight at these centers, any health risk that may be presented at these centers. we have to be concerned about zika, for example. and it's an opportunity in an expedited way to make informed judgments to the extent we can with the resources we have about whether the person has a good claim of credible fear. you can't do that in a border processing center. so two years ago i was actually quite surprised to find that in terms of immigration detention,

we had only 95 beds across 33,000 for families. only 95. given the changing composition of migration on the southwest border, that's just not going to work. so we built these facilities in the face of the reality of who was crossing the border. and as you noted, we have changed how we use these facilities in a way that i think is good for border security in that we hold on to these people consistent with the court order for a period of time so we can make informed judgments about whether they're eligible for spottied removal, whether they qualify for credible fear, and can proceed with an asylum case. whether they're a risk of flight and can be released consistent with our atd program. and that you can't do. you can't do at a processing center in brownsville where, you know, which is only designed for

holding on to somebody for, you know, a few hours at a time. so. >> it pains me to say we're out of time. thank you very much, sir. we really appreciate it. >> thank you. thank you very much, everybody. thank you.

sunday night on "q & a" clifton raphael talks about his student's award winning documentaries. some have been grand prize winners at our student camp competition. he teaches at jenks high school in jenks, oklahoma. >> i'm not the kind of teacher who will look at something that is not very good and go oh, that's nice, you did a really nice job with that. i'll say what's not working. eventually every single one of my kids makes a better piece than they did in the beginning. eventually the kids that do

really, really well internalize this stuff so i never have to say it to them. their own brain is saying these things to them. >> sunday night at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span's "q & a." while kronk congress son break, we're showing you american history weekend. coming up, the presidential campaign of adlai stevenson. we'll show you his acceptance speech at the 1952 democratic convention. and in about an hour and a half, a discussion of the impact on the 1952 campaign between adlai stevenson and dwight eisenhower. at c-span.org, you can watch our public affairs and political programing any time at your convenience, on your desktop, laptop or mobile device. go to our home page, c-span.org and click on the video library search bar. here you can type in the name of a speaker, the