economic development and job creation. that is why even as a matter of common sense. it is a matter of basic common sense, saving $50 million at stake is not saving at all. pound foolish,e long term, a cost to the nation. all we are doing is enabling the administration to do what we think it can do right now, cannot, and that is to move the from into the faa accounts one account to another. a vast majority of the united states senate agrees with us and the vote on the budget shows it and i am looking forward to moving forward in the next few months, if necessary.

>> i have a question about the furloughs. about theu think administration's contention that it does not have a lot of leeway? >> i hope in the hearing have no doubt that this issue of controllers will be front and center. that thet is an issue committee ought to examine, that congress ought to address. the administration does have the flexibility. if they do not comment -- if they do not, we attempted to give the president the authority to have the flexibility of picking and choosing. there were to be no across-the- board cuts. the administration issued

indicating the president would veto legislation that gave that flexibility. i think the administration does have the opportunities to make decisions about prioritizing spending within the department of transportation. if they do not, they ought to be asking -- the surprising thing to me is that this president does not ask for the ability to reestablish the priorities -- my experience in serving with congress would previous administrations, every president wants more authority, not less. >> let me add, i believe the administration ought to postpone these furloughs. at least for 30 days to give the congress an opportunity -- i

would permithority a more flexible response to the sequestration requirements at a time when there is heightened security. about security around the country. the additional crowds and confusion at airports ought to be avoided. that is why at the very least there should be a postponement of those for los -- for those of furloughs to address the heightened concerns. >> [inaudible] >> what i believe is there ought to be a postponement of the furloughs.

a lot of pressure to come up with money to stop the furloughs. how does that affect your ability to transfer money to keep the towers open? >> i think there is broad support. dandle the inconvenience of those who travel by air. -- they involve the inconvenience of those who travel by air. they involve our national security. i would guess there would be a more universal solution to this problem in which both control towers would be considered in the same legislation. i see them moving along as a team in finding a solution.

i have the sense that members of the appropriations committee indicating a willingness to help find necessary resources to make certain the control towers will not close. there is a broad consensus and widespread support for solving these problems. i would put the onus on the administration to solve the problem. in the absence of their willingness to do that, there is strong congressional support for solutions for both the control tower issue, which we got involved in a long time ago, and now the most recent manifestation of the circumstance would the furloughing of air traffic control tower controllers. administrator last tuesday orhe made no reference

statement in regard to what he was going to announce the following day. i would encourage greater cooperation and communication between eight faa and can -- between the faa and congress. i do not know how you come up with a plan that you announce on friday the you are furloughing on sunday. it seems to me there would be much longer lead time to give airlines the greater ability to respond. the circumstance to find ourselves in it is surprising to me. and unnecessary. i would suggest a delayed by a demonstration to give congress -- give demonstration a chance to change their mind and congress a chance to respond. >> [inaudible] do you think the administration [inaudible] >> it is hard to attribute

motives to people in the decisions they make. mece ray lahood indicated to that he would like to be helpful, but the administration opposed the amendment. his explanation was that we are only interested in long-term solutions, not short-term solutions. a very unsatisfactory answer when you are dealing with a particular resolution. the entire continuing resolution was how to fund the government from now until september 30 it. no satisfactory explanation for why demonstration a polestar amendment. it has led to speculation by many -- no satisfaction explanation for why the administration opposed our amendment. i would remind folks i did not vote for sequestration in the

first place. i think across the board cuts are inappropriate, irresponsible. we ought to be having the appropriations process to prioritize spending. we ought to have hearings to determine what we can afford and we cannot afford. i am not here to defend the process. i'm here to say that there is a better response than the one we have seen to the circumstances we are in. no one has explained to me why they would oppose taking $50 million from an obligated balances to keep air traffic control towers up and running. in the absence of that, it lends itself to believe there is something else afoot trying to demonstrate in a political sense that sequestration is something that cannot -- the country cannot afford. motives,d to attribute but that is the best explanation

i have heard. >> i take the administration at its word that it needs this authority to avoid the sweeping ramifications of closing these towers. we will give them that authority if they needed. the two are linked because closing the contract air traffic control tower is puts an additional burden on the control towers that are staffed by faa employees. the response of the administrator when i asked him about -- which has commercial flights -- is that they could use surrounding control towers, whether in new york or in bradley airport, and now those air traffic control towers are going to be further constraint and their staffing. really veryems are

closely linked. that is why this is important to keep those towers open at the contract airports as well as a postponement in the furloughs, which will enable all of us to see what the legal authority is, where the cost and inconvenience and economic impact can be reduced and make sure we do not in him and the economic recovery that is going slowly. ifas i said in the debate, the administration is trying to make a political point that sequestration is difficult to accomplish this is not a place to make that point. let's have the debate about sequestration. let's have a conversation about whether we can afford a reduction in the growth of spending. let's not put those who travel in this country's safety at risk

to prove that political point. it certainly seems as if politics is playing a significant role in determining faa areions tge taking. >> is it your sense that congress will not act separate from a broader budget deal? >> my view is that sequestration is here prue september 30 and we ought to try to address the specific challenges. richard might have a different view, the wish to address the specific challenges that present in regard to air traffic control towers. we ought not wait until after

september 30. this is the place this decision should be made. in the interim, we should solve the problems that we can solve. add, whatever the politics, the efforts of the congress should be to reduce the harm resulting from sequestration. there's no point in doing more harm. tto, is first, do no harm. in an area that is not luxury for many people, travel is essential to the functioning of our economy. in this day new hampshire, air travel is integral to business

-- in this day and age, air travel is integral to business development. >> i think our call is that the congressional process ought to work. we should solve this problem and we will live to debate the consequences of sequestration and the appropriations process. in the interim, let's solve the problem with air traffic controllers. >> this is a very bipartisan effort. we have bipartisan support. we can all agree that we should move forward on this bill. >> thank you very much. cubs i find it fascinating that mitch mcconnell is decrying the

sequester that he decried in the past and then supported. this is a result of a sequester been implemented. we made it clear they would be these kinds of negative effects if congress failed to take reasonable action to avert the sequestered. policy that everyone who was involved in writing and knew at the time. it was designed to be a bad policy and to be avoided. congress had an opportunity. this was the result of a choice they made to embrace the sequestered as a victory for the tea party and a home run. i am not sure if members of the republican party agree with those now. the sequester never should have

become policy. the president has put forward a comprehensive balanced approach to deficit reduction that would eliminate the sequestered. this is congress is a responsibility and it needs to take action. >> a couple of groups of bipartisan groups of senators making proposals. the demonstration has the opportunity prioritize spending -- the administration has the opportunity to privatize -- prioritize spending. the furloughs ought to be post bond. a couple of other senators asking the transportation secretary and head of the faa if they might be able to move money around. what is your response to that? >> the fact that various lawmakers are suggesting remedies confirms what i have said. only congress can take action to

stop the delays. the delays are a result of the sequestered that republicans insisted take place. let's be clear about the actions any actionstaken that they cannot take because of the way the budgets are structured. the department of transportation is required by the law to cut $1 billion between now and the end of september. has initiated a series of cost saving measures, including a hiring freeze, restrictions on travel, and reductions to contracts. thefact is 70% of operation's budget is personnel. there is no way to avoid furloughs. secretary ray lahood laid this

out as well would be an inevitable consequence if sequestered were to become law, were to be implemented, and overtime, all these other measures were implemented and the final action had to be -- that is just a fact. the president has put forward a balanced plan that would replace sequester. reduce our deficit while making investments necessary to have our economy grow and create jobs, protect the middle class and seniors. the president has engaged in a process with lawmakers were he is trying to find common ground to see if common ground exists. he has put forward a plan that would do that and would eliminate the sequestered in the process. when it comes to these delays, congress has to act in order to reverse these delays. >> you are not asking for the

ability to prioritize spending -- >> since we did everything we could to avert the sequester and republicans decided as a political matter that it was a home run for them to inflict this upon the american people, i think that suggestion does not hold water. secondly, the faa did take action to produce savings and avoid furloughs. because of the nature of their budget, and the personnel have the nature of their operation, furloughs are the only option available at this time. if congress wants to address this matter of, they should act, but this is something that only

congress can do. tell us what the administration is doing in dealing with the significant delays? but can you do at this point to try to rectify the situation? >> you are asking separate questions. as a matter of how we resolve our budget, disagreements have led to the imposition of a sequester. the decision by republicans to embrace -- in-line >> i understand that part. >> when there are consequences they do not like, to start pointing figures. they have the opportunity to avert this. our interest is then eliminating the sequester entirely. it never should have become law. when it comes to specific actions to deal with the delays,

andould refer you to thae faa to the department of transportation in general. >> janet napolitano and on the immigration bill proposed by a bipartisan group of senators. discussionhours, a of the decision not to treat the boston marathon bombing suspect as an enemy combatants. after that, a hearing on the constitutionality of using drones to target terror suspects overseas. look at herto vision as a partner. there were several first ladies who considered themselves to be partners. not that they were trying to tell them what to do, but to help advise them, to help take care of them, whether mentally or physically. i think she was a very significant influence on her

husband. >> she is a tragic figure. part of the tragedy is the partnership which did helped contribute to his becoming president, in many ways, was destroyed by the war. the presidency they have worked together to achieve. >> our conversation about mary todd lincoln is now available on our website. monday for next program. janet napolitano testified on capitol hill today on the immigration bill proposed by a bipartisan group of senators. she was before the senate judiciary committee for about 2.5 hours. >> good morning, everybody. i know we're on a tight schedule.

the secretary has to testify later today for appropriations. fornt to commend you working so hard on the coordinated national security effort in boston. the middle of the night, early morning briefings on what has happened and the way your department, local and state police, the fbi work together is a model for the rest of the world and how quickly everybody was able to move. the patriot day bombing and the

successful capture of the remaining suspect is why you were not here that day. i well understood what your schedule look like and it was time for you to be in the command post. a number of concerns were not part of the effort for comprehensive immigration reform. we return to testify about the ability of this. you had been here in february to testify about this effort. you said you were willing to come back. it is a testament to reforming immigration that you were willing to return just two months after last appearance here. the some sleepless nights in what has happened in the last few days. so, it would be easy to talk

about last week. this is the opportunity to ask you about economic opportunity, immigration modernization act, which is why you are here. this is a member of the cabinet that will be involved in implementing this legislation. and i repeat that you and president obama have done more in the first four years to enforce immigration laws and strengthen border security than in years leading up to this

administration. you have more than 21,000 agents on the border patrol. new technologies have been deployed to the borders. therding to the report by migration policy institute, the united states now spends more than it does on all the other major federal law enforcement put together. so, i think it is time to start talking about reforming the immigration system. we're doing more enforcement than ever before. that should not be a bar to having good immigration reform. it is long past time that we reformed our immigration system. system an immigration that lives up to american values. one that treats americans with humanity. one that shields the most

vulnerable among us. one that helps to enrich our committees. i commend several senators for their extraordinary work here. i am concerned that some are -- what some are calling it triggers for getting green cards -- i do not want people to move out of the shadows to the stuck in some kind of underclass. we should not make people's future status depended over a situation in which they have no control.

i believe we have to end the discrimination of gay and lesbian families. i am concerned about changes of the visa system for families. i have to question whether to spend billions on defense is the best use of taxpayer dollars in a country that we are furloughing air traffic controllers because we cannot pay for them. people have been brought to this country by other loving parents. we're creating businesses of their own like google and intel and yahoo!, companies that then hire hundreds of thousands of americans.

our nation continues to benefit from immigrants. values my parents inculcated in their children. the function of our immigration system affects all of us. senator grassley. >> thank you for the work you were involved with in boston as well. we welcome you, madam secretary. herepreciate you being today to discuss the immigration bill. the bill before us is a starting point. the bill is not perfect.

i am encouraged to see that one co-sponsor of the bill is taking suggestions on how to improve the legislation. we hope to have the opportunity to do just that. that are 92 other senators must have their chance to improve the bill. we have a duty to protect the borders. i'm concerned the bill will not secure the border and stop the flow of illegal migration. yesterday i brought up the language in the bill. legalization begins with the southern border security and fencing. the undocumented become legal.

once the secretary certifies that the fencing plans are deployed and completed, green cards are allocated to those here illegally. agricultural workers are put on a different path. if enacted today, the bill would put no pressure on this secretary to secure the borders. you have stated the border is stronger than ever before. you have indicated that congress should not hold up legalization by holding up border security measures. and requiring them to be a trigger for the program. every senator on the subject has said borders must be secured. short of that, this bill makes

the same mistake that we made in 1986. surely we do not want to screw up like we did 25 years ago. i'm interested in hearing about what problems the build fixes in our current immigration system. the clearing of backlogs, what does the bill do to fix the system? i'm concerned the bill provides authority to you and your department and your successors on almost every other page there is a language or the secretary to waive certain provisions of the law. that could add up to 400. the secretary may define terms as she seems fit. there is no accountability for the money to congress.

she can determine what evidence is successful. exempt various criminal activity. it reminds me of the 1693 delegations of authority that makes it almost impossible how to predict the law would work. it does not just apply to this bill. we have a situation that congress should legislate more and delegate less. there is a lot of talk of immigration reform. i have not advocated that we quit talking about immigration reform. we should carefully review the immigration laws to insure we are addressing critical national security issues.

the tragic events that occurred in boston and the potential terrorist attacks of the u.s.-canadian north are reminders that our immigration system is related to our national security matters. we know the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their student visas. people stayed below the radar. it has been reported the older boston bomber traveled to russia. his name was misspelled on his airline ticket. the bill weakens the entry exit system. it does not deploy a biometric system to land ports.

if this bill passes as is, we will continue to rely on airline personnel to properly type a name into a computer. if the background checks or anything like they were in the boston bomber, we are in serious trouble. if the background checks on the 12 million people who are here illegally are riddled with problems, it raises serious questions about the ability to investigate such individuals. we heard the immigration bill would weaken asylum law. it is a serious problem. courts are clogged with asylum cases. it is no secret that terrorists are trying to exploit the system. it allows any individual whose case was denied based on the one-year bar to get their case reopened.

they can still apply despite the current provisions that bars any relief under the immigration law. the bill provides exemptions for certain criminals, making some eligible under the bill. they may still apply for the provisional status. we heard about the system -- the situation -- we heard testimony about the immigration and customs enforcement agent about the inability of our agents to do their jobs. the group refused to hear from enforcement agencies.

it seems unthinkable that law enforcement would be left out of the room when the bill was put together. nothing in the bill deals with student visas. a terrorism case has come to light that may involve an individual that overstayed their student visa. these are important national security matters. i look forward to the testimony today. >> thank you. madam secretary, it is over to you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for common sense immigration reform. let me say a few words about the attack in boston. our thoughts and prayers remain with the city of boston.

i know all of us here are committed to finding out why this happened, what more we can do to prevent attacks like this in the future, and making sure that those responsible face justice. we will learn lessons from this attack. we will apply those and we will emerge even stronger. law enforcement joined together and shared resources. many had been trained in improvised explosive threats and many had exercise for this scenario. the response was swift and effective. will serve as a model for the future.

i think the people of boston showed tremendous resilience over the past week, and so did america. after 10 years of training and equipment and improved information sharing, our cities and nation are stronger, more prepared and better equipped to face a range of threats. this legislation will build on these gains. the draft bill captures the principles enunciated by president obama in las vegas and reflects the spirit necessary to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. the bipartisan work will strengthen security at our borders by funding the continued deployment of manpower and proven effective surveillance technologies along the highest traffic areas of the southwest border.

these efforts have already reduced illegal immigration. they must be strengthened and sustained. the bill helps eliminate the jobs magnet that fuels illegal immigration. it holds employers accountable and requires the monetary use of employment verification. employment verification supports strong border security. it provides businesses with a clear free and emission means to determine whether their employees are eligible to work here. we promote fairness, prevent illegal hiring, and we protect workers from exploitation.

the bill also provides a pathway to earn citizenship for the millions of individuals currently in our country illegally. many have been here for years and contributing to our economy. knowing who they are is critical to public safety. it must be evidence from the outset there is a pathway to citizenship that will be fair and attainable. dreamers and immigrant farm workers will also be included. those who complete the requirements will be able to achieve lawful status more quickly.

the bill will improve our legal immigration system. it raises the cap on visas. it continues to protect vulnerable immigrants. it creates new temporary worker programs while protecting american workers. businesses must be able to maintain a stable legal workforce if our economy is to continue to grow. as you make it easier for workers and for the people who are undocumented, this will pressure on the border and reduce illegal flows. the majority of americans support these common sense steps. we are ready to implement them.

we can and we will achieve the core provisions of the bill. we stand ready to work with the congress to achieve this important goal. the introduction of this legislation is indeed a milestone. i look forward to continue to working with you and to answering your questions today. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for a busy time being here. an additional one-half billion dollars to build a fence along the southern border. we have built 650 miles of fence along the border.

estimated that i 2.5 billion. billion..5 show me a 50 foot wall and i will show you a 51-foot ladder. more fencing would not have done anything about the case in boston. we have limited resources. significant gains have been made in the last four years. is half a billion dollars the most effective way to spend limited resources? >> if the congress decides that is where they want to put some money, we will comply. we would prefer having money not so designated so that we can look at technologies, they can be ground-based, air based, that may be more fitting to prevent

illegal flows across the southwest border. we would not so designate a defense fund per se. >> you would like flexibility? >> we would like flexibility. >> i assume there is an annual maintenance cost. >> operation and maintenance costs. there are holes put in it. we're very good at building the infrastructure. we know what works better. it is not just building but maintaining. >> questions about people's life along the border.

>> the last remaining mile of the fence has not been completed because it is tied up in property litigation. >> there was historic preservation for purposes of the defense construction. this bill also provides waiver authority. what goes into your thinking if you waive that authority? >> it is a careful process. we now have mou's the department of interior concerning the federal lands that are along the border that grant us access to build infrastructure and those sorts of things. some of the logistical problems have been worked out. when you build a fence that goes to the middle of a downtown

area, there are lots of values to be considered. >> when you were here a couple of months ago, i explained my concern about proposals where citizenship is always over the next mountain. i want the pathway to be clear. i want citizenship to be attainable. this legislation has several triggers that have to be met before people can get their green cards. some people come forward and wait 10 years to get the green card. then they go in a state of limbo. that worries me. are there triggers truly

attainable? >> one is the submission of the plans. one is the implementation of a national employer verification system. one is the implementation of an electronic entry-exit system. those triggers are already part of the plan. i believe we can satisfy them in the upcoming years. >> in the wake of the boston bombings, month raised concerns about security screenings. i don't believe the boston bombing is a reason to stop progress. i trust our law enforcement

people to be able to handle that case. our courts are the best in the world. i have no worry about that. it imposes on legislation. there are several provisions to make our country safer. does this legislation help or hinder that? >> let me start with what the process is now in share it that over the past four years we have increased the number and the coverage of the vetting that goes on. if someone is seeking asylum, they first have a screening interview to see whether they have presented any credible fear of persecution.

that includes biographic and biometric information. they submit to a full-scale interview. this could be several hours. it is usually accompanied by affidavits. one of the things we do is re- fingerprint the individual to make sure it is the same individual. we vet and so forth. or is reviewed by an officer as well. countryat things like conditions and other information that we gather.

after a year, we can convert lpr status. green card status. you are vetted once again. after five years you can apply for naturalization. you are vetted again and interviewed again. lastly, if you're granted a naturalization, at the ceremony we read that everyone. -- re-vet everyone. that is the current situation. one of the important things that existing build does quite frankly is bringing all of the people out of the shadows that are currently in the shadows. that process is very important. >> we heard testimony yesterday.

i share this feeling that there is a principle behind this legislation legalize now and enforce later. this is where i am coming from. i also you're assuming you read it. my questions come to some specifics. do you agree with my opening statement that upon enactment if it requires strategy before legalization begins? >> it requires plans for infrastructure and for border security. different plans and substantial completion. >> can you tell the american people why they should trust the

legislation to secure the border after 12 name people commit -- 12 million people get legal status and the ability to live and work freely in the country? >> the bill builds on the very large investments they have made with in the border. as a former governor and attorney from that area, it is the sustainment part that is so important. that is where we have experienced the gaps. we build on that. secondly, the bill actually supports border security that two major drivers of migration across the border are labor and the fact it takes so long to get a legal visa.

the bill deals with both of those problems in a way that gives us more metrics. it supports the border security measures already in place. >> the bill prohibits officers from removing aliens who "appear eligible" for legalization until a final decision has been made. does this bill tie the hands of immigration agents in the same way the 1986 amnesty did? >> i do not believe so. what the bill does this say did there running and move it as quickly as possible. do the security checks. do the background checks. get identification.

do not renew somebody who is not a priority individual. >> thank you for starting out your statement in reference to the boston situation. i feel comfortable asking this question. several pilots have reported that two individuals responsible for the bombings were immigrants from chechnya. before they became the focus of the investigation, authorities questioned a saudi student who was on a terrorist watch list. i trust you'll probably respond given the impact this could have on the immigration debate. was he on a watch list? >> he was not on a watch list.

he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. he was never a subject or a person of interest. because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watch list. when it was determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watchlist status was removed. >> with regard to the older brother, was your department aware of his travels to russia? if you were not, the reason. >> in 2012? yes. the system pinged when he was a -- leaving the u.s. by the time he returned the matter had been closed. >> is it true that his identity

documents did not match his airline ticket? i did tsa miss the discrepancy? why did the tsa miss the discrepancy? >> there was a mismatch. the bill will help with this. it requires that passports be electronically readable as opposed to being manually input. it gets human error out of the process. there are redundancies. the system did ping when he was leaving the united states. , but can i make a correction in my statement? >> certainly. >> i said yesterday it decade after 9/11 a terrorism case has come to light that me and an -- that a student

who overstayed his student visa. >> welcome. i have five questions, so i will try to go very fast. the first one is on e-verify. it is our understanding that you are planning to develop a pilot e-verify program for agricultural. i asked chuck who is representing the industry if they have heard of this. they had not. when will this begin? who is responsible for that implementation? >> it is under the implementation of cis, multiple sizes that can be moved of rounds of other areas that may not have offices. my dream would be to have some application. vhe bill does not have the e-

erify until you are four. -- eyar four. -- year four. we will have multiple ways employers can verify legal residents. >> can you have your people talk with mr. connor? >> yes. >> flight schools. but a report last year by many flight schools to obtain students in exchange visitor programs certification from immigrations and forced them without being certified by the faa. 167 out of 434th flight training schools, 38% today do not have the required faa certification. i am told ice is often unaware when they revoke certification for flight training providers. they are working with the faa to

address this issue. what assurances can you provide about efforts to improve its communications with the faa? >> we are very far along. we're also moving from a new system governing institutions that educates student visa holders. this will help solve the problem. i will get to that. >> the silent screen process. under the present system, applicants for asylum must undergo a credible interviewed to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution in his or her county of origin. but the officer determines that they have a credible fear, the application is a long for

further consideration. this bill streamlines the process partly by allowing a screening officer to grants asylum immediately following the interview. if this were to become law, how would the department in sure they're adequately screen for national security threats? current regulations permit to confer with the state department to verify the veracity of an applicant's claim. to what extent do they use the authority? are other barriers that prevent myis between the agencies? concern is it's ntot streamlined to the point where checks are

not adequate. >> we have greatly improved the information available from the get go in terms of what data bases are a checked. that source from the beginning when we collect this. with respect to the state department, we have very could-- very good relations with the state department in the area which is credible fear. >> you will check whether that is an accurate statement. >> yes. we do not take it as being valued.-- it as face value. >> the concern is that this bill truncates the process. i would just ask you to look at that. let me turn to the student visa fraud. this is something i have been interested in since 9/11 when there was a lot of it in the country.

i just looked at schools going back to 2008, most of in 2011. eight of the 14 schools are in my state where there are very suspicious activities going on. you have 10,500 schools approved by dhs to accept non-immigrant students. last year we sent a letter to immigration and customs enforcement to express our concerns about a student visa fraud and a lack of information sharing. the response letter noted that i.c.e.'s ability to monitor international students the second is expected to improve the ability to avoid fraud of

which there is still plenty. is it on track to be fully operational by 2013 when this bill goes into effect in? >> that is my understanding. >> we will count on it. >> it goes to the fact that this bill builds on the security matters we are have in hand. we are well under way. my anticipation is that it will be implemented by the end of the year. >> good morning. got to start something i agree with you on. the border fencing, texas is different from arizona and

california and other places. they have recommended some tactical use of fencing. i do not lead the building a fence across the 2,000 miles southern border is the answer. it is a combination. i like to see flexibility with cutting up with the best strategy to achieve the goal. >> let the record show we agree. >> that is a good start. here is the harder part. in the bill, there are different measures for effective control of the border.

it calls for a 90% effectiveness rates. it to you know how many people actually crossed the border and unbeknownst to the department and get away? we do not know the denominator. we know the numerator. >> that is one of the problem as using effectiveness rate as your only measure. as we continue to put in place of the technology according to the plant has minute to congress, we will live creature continents that we will have situational awareness. i will share with you bet that is an inherent problem, knowing

the actual denominator. >> i thought it bizarre that we measure our success by the people we ketch but not focusing on the people who got away. it is an inherent problem. >> it is a number that is used as one of the many that taken together a gives you an overall picture. >> the department would have to gain effective control over high risk sectors along the border. right now that the tucson, the rio grande sector and the laredo sector. two in texas and one in arizona. the problem is if they know where they're going to concentrate their efforts, they're going to redirect their

efforts into areas that are not as secure. >> this is the way it will work. all sectors will have protectors when in them. you want to fit your resources where the traffic is greatest. if it shifts, the resources will shift. we are much able better to predict where we think that will move. >> the bill provides for an angle review. my concern is that human traffickers are far more nimble. and in no decision seems to be unworkable.-- an annual decision

seems to be unworkable. >> that is what the drafted bill provides. we regularly review those numbers and make decisions. we would not wait for an annual review to make adjustments. >> on the number of people who get away, there was a story talking about radar technology the story suggested that as many as half of the people across the border get away undetected by the department of common security. you have any reason to disagree or deferred? >> yes. that story was misleading. they did not understand the technology. it has not even been used yet. we're taking something used in the battlefield and in

transferring to the border. it did not take into account the fact, but there were apprehensions' been made around. i can give you more of a detailed briefing in a private setting which i think is more appropriate. that article was very inaccurate and incomplete. >> i would welcome that. >> since 1996, the law of the land has mandated death the --plementation of an automated has mandated the implementation of an automated entry/exit system. here are 16 years later and it still has not been done. what gives you any confidence that it will be done?

>> we have enhanced our ability to link them in different ways. we have already submitted our plan for moving toward electronic verification. this is the plan we are already implementing. in terms of a biometric exit, and we piloted that in detroit and a plant said. one of the issues is our airports are not designed to have those kind of exit lights. and just a plain architecture problem. we believe we can achieve that with an electronic record verification. this would be for both air nc.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. last year and a bipartisan group of senators introduced an act which modernizes the waiver program, the wait times. there have been some dramatic changes made already. i wanted to know if you support this bill and if you think this is a good idea. we're financing improvements. >> the administration is supportive of the waiver

program. videoconferences and we're using in different areas. it is a tactical decision. it is 90 degrees in phoenix today. >> we have the mall of america. many officials have had their resources stretched. can you speak to the potential benefits? >> the bill does an excellent job of putting more resources at the border and specifying resources to be used in a stone garden type of arrangement.

i think there are some special provisions for arizona. it is supportive of state and local law enforcement. >> this is very important including in the immigration area. we have to use their audit team authorities to go in combat the use of all these programs. does this improve the resources the government has to identify? how do you think this helps? >> the bill increases the body of knowledge that we have

available to us. it requires more by way of employees. it requires a secure identification to be issued. we should also be able to take the database and dump it into our matching data base. that will be very helpful. >> that is something we have all been talking about. >> on the improvement is to bring people out of the shadows. we know who they are. we know where they are. once these people know that every time they interact they will be subject to removal, it

will help with the reporting of crime. >> that to ask you about. we worked hard to get this in the violence against women act. we had been there. we were trying to expand this. we know how perpetrator's expand this of perpetrators used the law against victims. can explain how they work helps to protect the victims of their not afraid to come forward? >> this expense in number of visas that are available. from a protections standpoint and our ability to prosecute those who are abusers is very

helpful. >> thank you. >> on thursday we are going to meet at 9:30 a.m. instead of at 10:00 because of a security briefing at 10:30 a.m.. we will need the quorum. >> thank you for joining us today. some of the questions i have had relayed to the amount of discretion that you and your successors will be given over

time should this become law. i do not mean to suggest that discretion is categorically bad. sometimes it is necessary. i want to look at where this would be invested in your office and ask about how it might work. in establishing the borders strategy, you will have a certain amount of discretion as to how much additional fencing might be deployed on the southern border region. you have discretion to certify when this is substantially complete. president obama states it in a speech in the past though that he believed the border fence was

basically complete. if you determine little or no additional fencing is necessary, what do think we this initial certify that it has been completed? >> if that is passed as it is currently written, i think we will move very quickly. we have sector by sector technology plans. we have not been sitting back waiting for a bill to pass. we would look very quickly. >> do you believe the discretion that is printed could permit you to make a finding that is complete without building any additional fencing?

>> right now the border patrol has done an extensive study of where fencing make sense across the southwest border. where itre 653 miles. actuallymak makes sense. that have beenf completed. we would go back and look at the kind of fencing is. he can do this for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity. in what situations which you

think about granting the waiver? the bill says you can do that .purposesitarian >> i'm going to caveat on my answers. i could see that there would be considerations based on the aid of a conviction, whether the individual was the primary wage

earner for the family, the record sent a prior conviction, that kind of inclusive a valuation. >> an applicant for rpi statue may not file on application unless the individual has satisfied all tax obligations to the irs. if the alien was authorized to work in the u.s., with those have been collected? they were not big of a rise, it

was a significant restriction. >> the intent of the bill is to make sure any people moving to rpi is paying all taxes. if the language has to be clarified, that is what the committee process is for. >> thank you very much. i see my time is expired. thank you very much. >> thank you. i wanted to thank you very much. this is a broad reaching portion.

i'm grateful for you doing your very best, particulate at this time when we open this hearing for reflections on the tragedies in boston and west texas. i am from the mid-atlantic, what assurance can negus of islam to -- what assurance could you give us that comprehensive immi ther dn reform won;''t furhter d egrade the ability to perform custom issues? >> this is to make sure that the additional activities are defined.-- and fees and fines an

thd the like. this'll help the economy grow and every state. >> there has been some discussion about discretion. under current practice they use the authority very sparingly. it said is have shown roughly 1% of all cases. how much more should we expect the department to exercise discretion? >> we do not think that is -- we alreadyolicy. do that pursuant to policy.

the tiintent o f the bill is to memorialize some of that in statute. >> immigrants spend time the information from own cases. the have to spend significant time because there's a discovery would the deparmtttment ob ject to streamlining this process? >> provided we have the resources to pull the files, i would have no objection. one of the real logistical issues is contained in paper files.

given the resources, anything we can do to share mind this would be something to be considered. >> the department may have seen some benefits in terms of the overall efficiency. >> what privacy protections need to be put in place to ensure employers to not miss use the system? how with this legislation and improve on it? do you think it to be appropriate to give the states additional funds with the assumption they will meet this obligation? >> it allows them to put their driver's license and database that the e-verify database.

is something we greatly suppor. >> thank you very much. thank you for your interest. >> thank you. it has been a real pleasure working with you on this very -- importantme. topic. let me start with a waiver provisions. it is my understanding there is no waiver for in aggravated felony. those three areas are not waivable. >> that is my understanding. it is good to know that there is some discretion. about what we're trying to accomplish here, how much money

have we spent on border security since 2005 or 6? >> billions. >> multiple billions. it had 3500 more officers. it does. people are stationed at the border. we have doubled in number since 2005 or six. we're adding 35 under more of a service to help secure the border.

we're also trying to achieve a 24 hour/seven day we presence. >> i would include different kinds of radar systems that work better. >> to appoint to spend $3 billion on carrying out the border enforcement strategy. -- we a line to allow the are going to allow the national guard to be deployed. >> that is rights. i really appreciate this mission assignments. >> i think it triples those under operation streamline. >> that is what we're doing to enhance the border itself. you agree with me that controlling jobs is just as important as securing the border?

>> at least as important. that is a major driver of illegal migration. dealing with the worker side is so important. >> these are not being overrun by 11 million. they come to visit. they go back home. we are being overrun by people with corrupt and poor countries. what only should you secure the border, but the second line of defense is controlling the jobs. 40% of the people here illegally never came across the border. they came to a visa system.

one of the triggers is to get an entry and exit running so we know when it expires. >> yes. >> the 19 hijackers were all students here on visas. >> that is correct. there are a number of ways that those hijackers would be revealed under the bill. >> now we have a robust guest worker program providing legal labor to workers who cannot find this. >> the combination of systems worked in concert, increasing

border security their technology and manpower, controlling at a national level. providing access to labor was trying to achieve border security. >> it is an interwoven system. absolutely. >> you said that the older brother, at the suspect was killed, when he left to go back to russia in 2012 the system picked up his departure but did not pick up him coming back. is that correct? >> that is my understanding.the text alertat the fbi on him was more than a year oled d and had esxpiorred.

>> the text alone was more than one year old. >> after having taught to the fbi, they tell me they had no knowledge of them coming back. the name was misspelled. i like to talk to you more about this case. i do not know how in the world we know this at this early stage. as to the person giving information, i would imagine the 19 year old will tell us that his brother was the bad guy. >> this is a very active on going investigation. off threads are being pulled. there will be a classified briefing for the senate.

>> thank you. we know you continue to have urgent matters which require your attention. i want to thank you for pointing out that there are two main drivers of a legal border crossings. one is labor. the second takes so long for a legal visa to come into our country. this addresses both of the issues that show us decreasing illegal border crossings. >> it allows us to focus our resources on those who are smugglers and narco traffickers.

>> it allows our priorities to be where they ought to be in terms of enforcement. this will help millions of families with their loved ones. it also dramatically restrict the ability of some families to reignite research and loved ones. did this is a concern to those who are on the way list from asia. but i like to continue to work with the members of the committees and with all of you to seek improvements on the family provisions to include lgbt families. veterans have been waiting for decades to reunite with their children. i know that compromises need to be made.

there are some areas where it went further than it needed to. this eliminates the categories and replaces it with a new mayor of based system. we believed it will eliminate many than members reunited with their it united states siblings. this provides assistance in an emotional financial support. it provides care. there are many times when this may be the only remaining member of their nuclear family.

i am concerned this will no longer provide a meaningful opportunity for them to participate for their siblings. what opportunities will they have to be able to immigrate to the united states. >> the intent of the bill is the exchange for allowing the spouses and children to be excluded in exchange for the recapture provisions of unused visas and balance with the increase in economic related visas. there are other avenues of different work related these is that a sibling would be eligible for regardless. there are different avenues they could receive. >> i have a hearing relating to comprehend the immigration

reform. they obtain legal sadness from a legal system. it would give points that allow them to score high enough to be able to come in. >> is difficult to answer that hypothetical right now. this is a big improvement. i think this is a major improvement. we will deal with a lot of the backlog. >> there are probably some ways which we can allow for these many members to come in so that the issue can be addressed.

i look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for joining us. thank you for the excellent work that you and your agency have done over the last week in dealing with and apprehending the boston bomber. it has been a time of great trauma. we're all celebrating that he was apprehended so quickly. >> thank you.

>> and would like to ask questions both dealing with process in dealing with border security. my office received the text to this bill at 2:25 a.m. on wednesday april 17, five days ago. the bill as a hundred 44 pages long. it is dealing with a very complicated topic. when did your office received a copy of this bill. >> about 3:00 in the morning. >> since you have been heavily focused on matters such as the bombing, had you had the time to read the bill?

>> i had read the bill. i know many sections of the bill fairly well so i was able to scan it. >> it is been a busy weekend. >> a very busy. >> restaurants of border-- metrics of border security are sometimes interesting. seems they pushed to a decrease as evidence that border security is working well. i'm always a little skeptical of these statistics that proves the end up being put forth. let me ask an initial question. have apprehensions increased or decreased? from last year to this year.

>> overall, they have stayed the same with respect to the southern rio grande valley where we had had an increase primarily in central mexico. i he did he it this. >> i am a little puzzled. earlier this month he told -- you toldn houston. reporters in houston. the borer der is more secure now than it's ever been.

sometimes this is a sign of success. >> both are accurate. apprehensive is up 40 years ago. the key is to sustain that. >> you just said a minute ago they were higher this year than last year. >> one is referring to border wide. one is referring to the rio secotor, weor.in that know that traffic is higher now. actions are being taken. >> your testimony is borderline apprehensions are down. >> what i just said is it is about level with last year expect with respect to south texas.

>> how does dhs measure border security? it relies upon them having a sound metric for who is attempting to cross this country illegally into is being prevented or apprehended. have to the action figure out what is happening and measures success? why is it the department no longer uses the much of operational control? >> we look at a number of things. we look at apprehensions. we look at crime rates. we look at seizures both inbound and outbound. we look at reports from those on

the ground at the border. it is a whole host of things. one of the things we are really looking for is what is the trend. this is all in a positive direction that we can also make decisions about where we can put more resources. we know south texas is problematic for us but we are moving more manpower in there and i bet we will see these very quickly.

>> i just want to thank you for the house standing job your doing. this bill is going to be available for everyone to read for three weeks. i would also say that we had senator grassley. he introduced a gun bill at 11:00 on the very day. i did not set any cry about it. there'll be plenty of time for everybody to prepare amendments for members of this committee and for members of the floor. this is just like health care. it is not.

we started debating this before it was even introduced. i think i speak for the eight of us who put this together. last time we cannot have a committee process. the bill collapsed on the floor. compromises could have emerged. we may have avoided that. to have a robust processes and our interests. nobody is trying to rush this through in any way. i would now like to talk about the border. back in 2000 sent the mayor member that some john mccain and myself into the border bill that had a supplemental approach of about $600 billion. at that time it had an effectiveness rate of 68%.

out of every hundred people that authorities saw, they are able to catch or turn that 68. after the border bill was passed, it went up to 80 to zero. is that correct? >> the immigration bill today appropriate for four of $5 billion and up to 6.5 over the next five years. given that that this made such progress, can you tell us what kind of security impact will have display device settings device: --

speed that up to can only improve where we already are. like i went to the border. it was a revelation to me. it is clear that it is a vast border. i am from the tiny state of new york. you cannot do it is by letting the people. you can figure out where the people are going and apprehend them 50 miles inland.

the drones have the ability to follow that. we need more drones. we need more air. >> i do not disagree in the technology. the denominator has always been one of the major problems in calculating. >> again, how we tighten up security. it is clear that tamerlan tsarnaev had no record of him going to russia are coming back because his name was misspelled. it was a foreign airline. under our bill, everything will have to be a passport or machine-read. is it a safe guess that under our law the authorities would know that tamerlan was going to russia?

>> there was a ping on the outbound to customs. anything that makes a requirement for machine readable gets manual in putting out of the system and improves security. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it was a revelation on the border. we saw an apprehension. >> they knew exactly where the person climbing the fence would go. it was amazing. >> i think the woman heard senator schumer's accent and thought she was in new york. [laughter] it was a good trip. it is always good to see the border.

you talked about apprehension rate. there has been concerned about metrics. is it true what we're calling for in the legislation is pretty much what you do now? senator schumer quoted some statistics from several years ago. now you have more resources to do it. the net effect. we know how many people across. we can get a better figure there.

>> no one number captures the nature of the border. that is why i say there is no one metric that is a number 42 or some sort. these give you a picture of the border. they are informed by what we are seeing. >> given where we are already, you'll be able to achieve the 90% effectiveness rate? >> the border provides for a commission and additional resources. it is not just at the border. it is improving the overall system. >> the so-called second border.

do you see any issues with having e-verify mandatory and the time frame called for? >> it is achievable assuming the resources are available. we will implement the bill with the timeline you have given us. >> the provisions called for in the bill -- do you see those as helping in that regard? >> absolutely. we are already doing things like photo match. very, very helpful. also incentivizing states to put their drivers' licenses into the database. >> the current concern is that

e-verify can tell if a social security number is valid. how does this legislation deal with that? >> it allows us to implement a system that creates a lot on a lot-- that creates a lock on the social security number. >> "i have my job so i will lock my number so cannot be used elsewhere.? thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> this bill gives the secretary extraordinary discretion if it were to become law about how the law would be carried out.

that causes me a great deal of concern. october in 2011, i share with you my concerns. the department has been more focused on meeting with special immigration groups then supporting them and helping them accomplish with the law requires in this country. have you met with those officers and you said no. have you met with the officers of the ice association? >> have i spoken to border patrol officers in the field, yes. >> i think you should have met with them in the field. morale of ice employees had dropped.

were you aware that the morale at ice had dropped? >> that is a real concern of mine. >> are you aware in lawsuit has been filed? a vote of no-confidence in the ice director was held. nothing has been done to deal

with the failed leadership at that agency. >> ice has increased its enforcement efforts and has installed real priorities for the first time. the director gets criticized for departing too many people as opposed to not enough people. that is a difficult job to have. ice has removed more people and we now have secure communities installed. >> i could not disagree more. that's not what the officers are saying. let me ask you this. she was interrupting my comments. >> i apologize. >> i do not believe that is accurate. he testified that agents are prohibited from enforcing the law.

the ice officers have filed a lawsuit. i have never heard of a situation in which a group of all bank officers sued -- a group of law officers sued. they were saying the oath they took to enforce the law is being blocked and that this is undermining their ability to do what they are sworn to do. >> may i respond? there are tensions with you in leadership.-- with younion leadership. this is what i expect. law enforcement agents will enforce the law in accordance with the guidance they are given from their superiors.

that is fully asked throughout the department. that would be consistent with all law enforcement. those are set their superiors.-- agents don't set the enforcement priorityu. >> well, mr. crane testified that said agents shall do this that or the other.

..

>> those questions are legitimate and need to be asked. there has been way too much vagueness and lack of clarity even in the information that is come out of the chain of command on the matter. i believe there is -- you should be separated into three questions, is it legal, good strategy and if we decide if we want to use lethal force, because it is legal in the counterterrorism arena, what platform should we use? i will focus on discussion -- discussing that process. it would be surprising that a pilot should be advocated for an aircraft in order to conduct an

operation. in the course of my 22 years, in the military, i have extensively worked with aircraft for a friday of means. you often have a lieutenant pilot and an airman first class on the ground making decisions to use lethal force was strategic consequences. if there is collateral damage, there is a great level of issues related to that wrong decision. when you talk about the use of remotely piloted aircraft, you have what i believe is unprecedented levels of oversight and precision if you are choosing to use that as a platform. the other choices are fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, seals, artillery and other means of force. the number ofause issues that have come together and lineup to include positive

identification, geographic location, collateral damage and other, communications that need to happen, it is often not practical because the targets are fleeting to use any of these other assets. these stars are all lining up in a very fleeting moment. those conditions could not be met in the next moment. remotely piloted aircraft overhead as the and thes are lining up process is a great deal of scrutiny, you have a chain of command watching. lawyers sitting side-by-side with you and you can wait until the moment that you have a divide the positive identification and all the criteria has been met and you can also abort at the last minute.

there is usually 30 minutes of planning and oftentimes you cannot divert the muscle as an example. piloted our craft gives us the highest level of scrutiny and oversight and persistence and precision if you're deciding to have a lethal strike. onook forward to discussions this matter and also the process we go through in the military to achieve the different criteria before we are cleared for those strikes. >> our next witness is peter b ergen. ands a best-selling author widely publicized journalists. he is the cnn security analyst on national security. he has worked at the harvard kennedy school of government. a from oxfordc

university. thank you for the privilege of testified. -- testifying. collecting data for the past three or four years. my presentation will be about what's been happening in the drone program. here are some of the main points. obama, therent have been 307 drone strikes. that is more than president bush did in his term in office. these road program has changed in 2010 -- the drone program has changed. there's been a push back the state department about are we losing the war in pakistan.

, ais angering the pakistanis country with nuclear weapons, that is a huge price to pay. the cia has an ability to override the state department objections, but the large discussion has been one of the state department. i am thankful we are having this public discussion. there are a whole series of -- you've seen seen a decline in pakistan. there was only one drone strike in yemen owner

we calculated there were somewhere between 467 and 674 casualties. all but six of them took place under president obama. , as thethe targets professor indicated? militant leaders are not being killed in any great number. 2% of casualties or people you could term leaders. it is an interesting development. what was initially started, i think, as a program that was targeting members of al qaeda has devolved into a kind of counterinsurgency air force. you could say that is a good or bad thing. but it is a fact that is happening. what is the civilian casualty rates -- rate?

we found it has declined over time. 100%.6 it was almost now today confirmed citizen casualties we calculate 2%. we added an unknown category of nine percent. sometimes it is not clear if someone is civilian or military. everyone dresses the same. someone referred to as a tribesman could be tell about or civilian. but we are finding it significant. one reason is drowns, the -- smallerthere are payloads, better intelligence. president obama has taken a more direct role in adjudicating potential strikes where there might be a civilian casualty. we have seen a strong drop but there are still civilian casualties. we are not the only group that looks at this issue.

there is the london-based bureau for investigative journalism. we find the civilian casualty rate in 2012 is quite low. on thisl rapporteur issue went to pakistan and we had a very interesting discussion with pakistani officials. they said to him there were 400 civilian casualties in pakistan, which is close to the number we think is correct. this is the first official acknowledgment in pakistan at least on background that the civilian casualty rate is much lower than presented in the pakistani rate -- press. what impact is this having on the caliban? the best impact on al qaeda is in osama bin laden himself. he was very concerned about the ofne program and the amount damage it was creating. he was concerned that al qaeda should decamp to eastern afghanistan. he even suggested they moved to

away from the tribal region. we are seeing that if it is having impact, to reinforce what the precedent is clearly worry some. 70 countries have, three have armed drones. the chinese are very close to being able to arm their drones. you could easily imagine a situation where china deploys drones against uighur separatists essentially with the same rationale we use against the al qaeda or taliban who we deem to be terrorists. witness has certainly made a personal sacrifice to be with us. a yemeni youth activist and journalist who has cofounded several youth initiatives in yemen. he currently works for a grassroots youth-run foundation named it constructively in publicemeni youth

policy dialogue with the assistance of the u.s. state department scholarship. he studied at the u.s. touring high school and attended the american university of beirut, graduating with a degree in public policy. i hope i pronounced your name close to correct. thank you for traveling from yemen to join us. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, chairman durbin. thank you for inviting me today. inm from a remote village yemen. six days ago my village was struck by an american drone in an attack that terrified the region's farmers. america has helped me grow up and be what i am today. i come from a family that lives off of the fruit, vegetables, and livestock of our farms. my father's income rarely

exceeded $200. he learned to read late in his life and my mother never did. my life, however, has been different. i am different today because the u.s. state department supported my education. i attended an american high school that was one of the best years of my life. i learned about american culture, managed a school basketball team, and trick-or- treating on halloween. but the most exceptional experience was coming to know someone who ended up being like a father to me, a member of the u.s. air force. withof my year was spent him and his family. he came to the mosque with me and i went to church with him. he became my best friend in america. i went to the u.s. as an ambassador for yemen and came back to yemen as an ambassador of the u.s.. i can never have imagined that the same hand that changed my life from a miserable to a

promising one would also turn on my village. a understanding is that certain man was the target of the drone strike. many people in the village know him and the yemeni government could easily have found and arrested him. he was well known to the government and even to the local government. even they could have captured him if the u.s. had told them to do so. in the past, what villagers knew in the u.s. -- about the u.s. was about my stories of my wonderful experiences, the helpedhip i described them to understand the america i know and i love. they think of the fear they feel from the drones that hover overhead ready to

fire missiles at any time. previouslynts failed to achieve one drone a strike managed to achieve. there is no anger against america. this is not an isolated instance. are the faceikes of america to many yemenis. i've spoken to victims of the drone of strikes like a mother who had to identify her innocent 18-year-old son's body through a video on a strangers cell phone. father who held his for an six-year-old children dead in his arms. i spoke with one of the tribal 2009 at theent in place where the u.s. cruise missiles targeted a village. more than 40 civilians were killed, including for pregnant women. the tribal leader and others

tried to rescue victims but the bodies were so decimated that it was impossible to differentiate between children, women, and animals. some of these innocent people were buried in the same grave as the animals. testimony i provide details about the human cost of this and other drone strikes based on an interview i have conducted or been a part of. experience of the fear they cause. late last year i was with an american journalist colleague. the local people we were interviewing told us that based on past experiences the same -- the vehicle hovering above us was an american drone. i felt helpless. it was the first time i had truly feared for my life or for an american friends life in yemen. i could not help but think that the drone operator might be my

american friend with whom i had the warmest and deepest relationship. i was torn between this country that i love and the drone above my head that could not differentiate between me and militants. it was one of the most divisive and difficult experiences i ever encountered. i felt that way when my village was attacked. thank you for having this hearing. i believe in america and believe americans truly know how much suffering the u.s. airstrikes have caused and how much they are harming efforts to win hearts and minds in yemen and hearts and minds of the yemeni people. they will reject this devastated targeted killing program. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> general cartwright, in a recent speech you noted

your concerns about potential reaction to the targeted strikes. in that speech you said, if you are trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how price size -- precise you are you upset people even even if they are not targeted. general stanley mcchrystal has said resentment created by the american use of unmanned strikes is much greater than the average american appreciates. the testimony provides chilling strikes canow the undermine our efforts to win the hearts and minds of the very people we are relying on to provide us intelligence and ultimately be our allies. are we trading short-term tactical success of killing individual targets for the long- term strategic failure by sowing widespread discontent and anger? , i cannot talk to specific operations. >> i understand. >> but i am worried we have

lost the moral high ground for much of the reasons that the witnesses have talked about. ine element of transparency process, in decision-making, in the understanding not just of those who actually make decisions but of the people of this country and the people of countries we are working in, is going to be essential to find our way back to that moral high ground. i believe that if people understand what the options are and the choices are and they are reviewed and they are basically, as we do in our judicial system, in an adversarial way looked at with a very john this die about whether we want them to proceed or not to proceed, we can move in a direction far better than today. but i believe in several areas around the world the current drone policies have left us in a position where we are engendering more problems than we are solving. , i am sure,you also

acknowledge that because of the classified nature of information that is being andeted -- used to target protecting sources and methods which we are using to find that information, it makes transparency if not challenging, impossible? >> i would say challenging but not impossible. it is not necessary to provide the secret sauce, to provide an understanding of why you are doing you are doing, how you are making the decisions, and why they are necessary, and that you have reviewed alternative choices in the process. that is the important part to get out. i do not disagree that, as i said in my testimony, the policy we are following in the global war on terrorism is a policy that i support. but it is the means and methods that we need to take a look at and seriously reflect on. , lookingsor brooks down the panel to see who may have been here in 2001 to cast the vote on the authorization

for the use of military force, i can her member there were two votes. one relative to the invasion of whichand the second vote we considered to be the direct 11, theto nine/11 -- 9/ invasion of afghanistan for the direct assault on al qaeda. virtually all the members voted in favor if i'm not mistaken. at the time i do not think there was a single senator that they envisioned 12 years later we would be ending the longest war in our history and we have created an authorization for an ongoing warlike effort against al qaeda operatives and their associates. so i guess my question to you, whether or not the authorization for the use of military force is adequate to the task of protecting america when we are still menaced and

terrorized by those who would do us evil. whether or not there needs to be a revisiting of that to determine whether it should be stronger or more specific. >> senator durbin, i would be inclined to urge congress to repeal the 2001 aumf. i believe the president already has ample power as the commander in chief and chief executive of the united states to use military force when it is necessary to protect the united states from an imminent and grave threat. i would emphasize the words imminent and grave. i think in the absence of an authorization to use military force we would likely see the executive branch perceive itself as constrained to a more careful analysis of the importance of using military force, particularly in a context where it is a targeted killing in a foreign country which raises sovereignty issues among

other things. i share my colleagues's view that there is nothing inherently wrong about the use of targeted killing as a tool in the context of armed conflict, but i believe we have gotten well beyond what the drafters of the .umf could ever have imagined we have stretched it from al qaeda and the actual language of the authorization that focuses very squarely on those with responsibility in some way for 9/11 and preventing future attacks such as that on the united dates, we have begun to shift, as my colleague said, to those who you might say are further and further down the terrorist food chain. not only senior operatives does -- but lower-level militants. we have focused on organizations that it is not so ,lear would fit the definition in terms of any either link to the 9/11 attacks or any , orbility, capacity

inclination to focus on the united states. >> i guess what i'm driving is this. i think the definition of our enemy in thataumf as al qaeda and associates could certainly be challenged today in terms of terrorism threats to the united states. some have gone far afield from the original al qaeda threat. but are still realistic threats. ,o the definition of our enemy our enemy combatant, would have to be carefully considered in the context. secondly, i would think we now are challenged to define the battlefield, and where we can engage in targeted killing, and what it takes to authorize us to go into somalia, yemen, pakistan, afghanistan, or nations in africa. where is that battlefield? it seems like he can change almost on a daily basis and still be a threat to the united states. having been through this debate many times in the house and

senate over the authority and responsibility of congress to declare war on behalf of the american people, i do not think a founding fathers in their wisdom could have envisioned quite what we are facing today in trying to keep this country safe. senator kurtz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to take the opportunity to welcome and thank senator grassley, the ranking member on the full committee, for joining us at this important subcommittee hearing. with unanimous consent i would like to after him -- offer him the possibility to answer questions before i do. >> i will wait my turn. >> very well. thank you. i appreciate each of the witnesses coming here and presenting very learned and very provocative testimony on this critical issue.

i would like to begin by posing to each of you the hypothetical apposed to attorney general holder. it seems to me on the question of what is the permissible use of legal force that there are ends of the spectrum that are relatively easy to answer and then there are areas in the middle that raise far more complicated legal questions. it seems to me there is no serious question that if a foreign national is overseas and is actively taking up arms against the united states, that legal force can and probably should be used against that foreign national. in those circumstances. likewise, it seems clear to me that the answer to the hypothetical apposed to the attorney general is a simple and straightforward. the hypothetical was, if if the united states citizen is on u.s. intelligence to suggest that the individual is terrorist or involved with al qaeda, but at that moment that

individual poses no imminent threat, indeed, if that u.s. citizen is sitting on u.s. soil at a café in northern virginia, does the constitution allow the united states government to use a drone to kill that u.s. citizen on u.s. soil? in my view the answer is simple and straightforward -- absolutely not. the question i would like to pose to all six of you, does anyone disagree with me on that , does anyone disagree that the constitution does not allow killing a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil if that individual does not pose imminent threat? >> i agree with you. i am encouraged by that answer. i wish the obama administration had accepted the subcommittee's invitations to send a

representative. because the last time the attorney general was here he was quite reluctant to the answer you just gave. it seems to me there are many difficult questions about the use of drones in our current policy using them overseas. there are strategic questions. using a drone strike to take out a terrorist or even a leader of al qaeda means necessarily that the individual will not be apprehended, or interrogated, and we will gain no actionable intelligence and will not as a result of any interrogation be able to prevent acts of terror in the future. of course, with a drone strike the risk of error is such that if the individual is not who we think it is there is no process to correct that mistake. the consequences of mistakes are significant. that being said, the ambit of this committee is the

constitution, and that is the principal focus. i would like to ask a question. it seems to me that on the question of the constitution's parameters, if we agree with the two extremes i suggested you get into the gray area in between. i want to suggest for possible possible criteria and get your thoughts as to how each of those criteria impact the constitutional question. the first, the individual who is the target of the drone strike, whether that is an individual as a united states ,itizen, a permanent resident or a foreign national. the second possible criteria that may be relevant to the inquiry is the location. is that individual on u.s. soil or is that individual overseas? a third possible criteria and -- is if they are

actively affiliated with a foreign hostile force such as al qaeda. isourth possible criterion whether that individual vote -- poses an imminent threat of violence. one of the concerns i had about the white paper that was released to nbc is the definition of imminent threat in my view that this administration has put forward is exceedingly broad. so i would ask you to address your views of the constitutional relevance of each of those four criteria and, to the extent imminent threat is important, how should it properly be defined so it is a relevant qualifier? >> thank you, senator. i think that they are perfectly

reasonable criteria. i think the administration has put out very similar criteria. the trouble is the devil is in the details, as you suggest. we can say that if somebody meets the criteria, being a member of a foreign force that is taking up arms against the united states or something like that, then they become targetable. no one will disagree with that on broad principle. the trouble is, who decides what constitutes evidence? what if you make a mistake? the same is true for all the other criteria. no one will disagree with the notion that the president has the inherent authority, aumf or not, to use military force in the context of the threat of an imminent and serious attack against the united states. but as you suggest, the term of imminence has gotten pretty squishy in the administration's legal memos we have seen so far. i think that is why i would

highlight not so much the criteria in the abstract but creating adequate mechanisms to ensure sufficient transparency consistent, obviously, with classification concerns and to ensure oversight and accountability in the case of abuse and mistake. one other thing i would add is that to me we have a constitutional question but we also have a broader rule of law question in the declaration of independence. our forebears spoke of any legal rights all men have. today we would talk about human rights. obviously the fact that someone is not a u.s. citizen, well it does mean they do not have specific protection of our constitutional law, should not make us care less about their legal records in the event -- recourse they are -- recourse in the event they are wrongly targeted. i am fully confident in my colleagues in the administration making their very best efforts to prevent abuse and error but i do not

know that is a very firm foundation for thinking about the rule of law more generally and in the future. thank you very much for the question. i think each of the points you raise are potentially important in different situations. let me briefly try to give a thought sonny -- a few thoughts on each of them. one is whether the individual is a u.s. citizen or foreign national. as i noted in my testimony, a u.s. citizen can be an enemy combatant in the war, making them a legitimate target. however, there are special constitutional problems with the targeting of u.s. citizens where it might be a violation of the fifth amendment. it is less clear whether the fifth amendment applies to foreign nationals outside of u.s. soil. obviously even if it does not, targeting an innocent civilian is still a legal under various domestic and international laws area even if they are not a u.s. citizen. but the constitutional issues might be different.

the question of location, the second criterion you raise, i would tend to -- tentatively suggest there is a reasonable suggestion that should be drawn between suspected terrorists in areas where the government is supporting the terrorists or do not have meaningful control over what is going on versus countries where there is a rule of law and we can legitimately resort to working with that government and apprehending these people by peaceful means without resorting to lethal force in the first instance. does makehink it significant significant difference whether the individual in question is actually affiliated with al qaeda or one of its associates or whether an independent operator or affiliated with some other unconnected group. the authorization for the use of military force does not give the president the authority to target any and all potentially hostile groups. it is specifically limited to "

those nations, organizations, or persons that the president determines land, authorized, committed, or aided terrorist attacks occurring on september 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations. at war with the organizations listed we are not at war with all potential dangers groups. to the extent that targeting has gone beyond that level the laws of war may not apply in the same way. it does make a difference. and one thing i urge in testimony is congress consider by abolishing the aumf clarifying it as to what if any other groups beyond those listed are legitimate targets. finally, as i noted in my testimony, for groups we are at war with weakened target then even if if they are not an imminent threat. for people not covered by the aumf, how imminent the threat

posed is an important issue and one that perhaps we can address in more detail later. i do not want to take up too much time. >> thank you. before recognizing senator frank when i ask for content -- consent to enter a statement. >> i want to thank the chairman for calling this important hearing. obviously, drone strikes have transformed the way we conduct war and the transformation has extensive public debate. you know we are dealing in new and strange territory. senator cruz and i have the same questions. , i want to talk about the new standard that seems very brought to me, too. i think the debate and

discussion is important. think the legal justification for the strikes needs to be made public in suitable form. to the room went and looked at some of these memos, and after reviewing them i do not understand why the expert redactors and the department of justice could not have just stripped out any of the national security information, the sources and methods that need to be redacted, and make the legal analysis public. i was disappointed that the administration did not send a witness today, as was the member. and ranking i have long argued that the department should not practice secret law and should make all of the office of legal counsel's

opinions available to the public. i think transparency and accountability are very important, especially for an issue as sensitive as this. am also troubled that this has not been released to the congress, all the memos related to targeted killings. , as far as targeting and the question the ranking member asked, this is not my question, it came from in other senator. --has not authorized to ask authorized me to ask this, or she. see, i could be a secret agent, too. just in terms of targeting u.s. citizens, we had a situation in boston where we hold up -- holed up in

. backyard in a boat he by all accounts have explosives on him. they did send a robot in to go in and take off the tarp over the boat, but isn't it possible that we could see a situation in might want to take that person out in a different way, as odd as that is for me to ask? it feels odd, but anyone have an opinion on that? the attorney general answered the question about -- actually senator paul's question, does the president have the authority to kill an american and not engaging in combat on american

soil? eric holder said no, but does anyone have an opinion? the would -- i will let lawyers talk about the loss side, but in that scenario and many other hypothetical scenarios you could walk through inside the united states there are so many other means by which we can approach the situation safely and ensure was forthe last act the individual to stand up and put their hands in the air, that we would not revoke the right of the individual to give up. it would not be something i could -- >> we would obviously only resort to that, this is maybe arguing angels on the head of a pin. i will move on. professor brooks. >> the only thing i would say is i think it is very important to distinguish between the kind of weapon and the kind of legal framework. by apon that is released

remotely piloted vehicle or robot is just a weapon. we have very clear rules in a domestic law enforcement context about when police can use lethal force. as long as we have the clear legal framework, the lethal force is sort of irrelevant what means you use. the problem is not be drone hypothetically being used as opposed to something else. the problem is whether we think we have to abide by the normal rules that govern police use of lethal force or whether we are in a war environment in which you can target an enemy combatant well he is sleeping. he does not need to pose any threat. your targeting him based on status, not activities. >> because we are talking about methods we use and talking about very disturbing testimony.

this might be for you, professor brooks, or anyone, we have blowback when we do manned airstrikes. what is the difference? , i not -- in other words think you wrote in your , i'm sorry i was not here for your oral testimony but you wrote that there are civilians, obviously civilian casualties when we do manned airstrikes. is there a qualitative difference? anyone who wants to answer that. >> senator franken, this gets to the heart of what is trying to get at in my testimony. once you have answered the question that it is legal to do a strike and that it is good

strategy to do a legal strike, when you are then selecting the platform a remotely piloted aircraft actually gives you better precision with a small warhead with persistence over head and the to abort at the last minute. if the whole chain of command is watching and intel analysts are not getting shot at. once you decide to actually conduct a strike they provide unprecedented persistent oversight. when we are using ground forces, special operation, fighter aircraft, which i have done many times, you do not have the same oversight. you often have individuals on the ground talking with aircraft overhead who have just been shot up and their perspective is skewed. you are making decisions in the heat of battle. are talking, you about counterterrorism operations and having to choose the platform, often times we

are talking about places where we do not have american forces and we have to decide whether we want to risk american forces to go in there either on the ground or in the air. so they give us an asymmetrical capability where we do not have to risk american forces. that is not a bad thing that we are not risking american forces once you have decided is important to conduct a legal strike. that provides greater the fallacy -- greater lethality and the ability to abort than other assets three >> i think the key point, as i try to stress, is that it does not matter if we are using a drone or a bomb a plane or a sword or a dagger. that is not what matters may moral or legal point of view. what matters is whether we are choosing the right target. if we have chosen the right target we are entitled to use all appropriate weapons. it would be a mistake to ban a particular technology -- if this

case it is more active -- accurate or discriminating. >> he raised his hand. i know inder, and think you will speak to this, this new type of warfare, and thebergen has spoken to number of countries, now 70, that they are in, is it a different kind of blowback, a different kind of reaction because of the very nature of it? >> yes. i think there is an immense difference. propaganda al qaeda that yemen is at war with the united states. is a war ofis it mistakes. the less mistakes you make, the more you win. morehe drones have made mistakes in a matter of civilians.

capture this person. it is not impossible. you could have captured this person without a big blowback. whether it has 1000 or 10,000, the difference is not that much. it's power is how much logic it has on the ground and how much it can convince yemenis that they are in a war with the united states. and the drones have been great tools they have used to prove that they are in a war with the u.s. thatis the main blowback there would not be with ground forces, especially if they can have information from them. >> thank you for that. >> it is my understanding senator grassley will have a chance to ask -- >> first, permission to put a statement in the record.

>> without objection. a i will immediately go with question because it is a follow- up on the discussion you had with senator cruise. is the current aumf broad enough to encompass targeted strikes ordered by a president, in this case president obama, or should congress broadened that for the strikes to continue? >> so without knowing the full details of all of the targeted strikes that have been done it is hard to say which, if any, cannot be covered by the aumf, although i suggest that some are at least questionable. i think congress should try to to moree aumf precisely define what kinds of groups we can target. perhaps we do some groups that are not covered by the aumf that ideally what we want is an ability to target organized groups waging war against us but at the same time not give the

president a blank check to target whatever groups he or someone else in the administration mike and ed are it might be -- might consider it is a good idea to go after. i do not think you should butletely repeal the aum,f some clarification is desirable. >> does the constitution provide a sufficient basis for the president to order strikes as a reliance on the law? >> it depends on what strikes we are talking about. strikes that do deal with imminent threats, defined relatively narrowly, could perhaps be justified as defense against attack. but beyond that i think one want strikes against groups not covered by the aumf. i did not direct this to you, colonel, but what is your view

on my last question about the constitution versus reliance on the aumf? >> i am not a legal expert, but i will say that article two of the constitution, if the target is an imminent threat than that clearly is authorization in and of itself. comes in is when you do not have an imminent threat criteria that you have all qaeda leaders and that ares specifically designated in the intelligence process to allow them to be legitimate targets. in my work broadly, in africa command, which i think has the highest level of scrutiny of the areas we are talking about, it was a very high level in order to make the case that individuals or organizations fit the criteria of aumf. the bar was very high and the discussions were at the highest level of the chain of command before anybody was approved. >>

you bothuestion, suggested today that one of the problems with the current drone strike procedure is oversight. specifically, who determines the target, how they do so, how much evidence they might need. one solution some have raised is an independent court that reviews administration targets prior to drone strikes similar to the current court that reviews foreign intelligence operations. critics of the proposal note that a court would be misleadingly comforting to the public because they are not experts in warfare. further, the use of such a court raises separation of power concerns. question -- do you think a special court is a good idea to provide independent oversight of the targeted killing programs? let me follow-up. would such a court be

constitutional? sorry, i'm having trouble with the microphone here. in brief i think it would be constitutional. there can be legitimate questions about how such a court would be set up and how it would be run and some scholars that i cite in my written testimony have discussed this in some detail. it can bee issue of overcome simply by appointing lawyers and others who do in fact have a background in relevant military issues. there is always the danger of false comfort or complacency but such an institution by providing an outside check on executive discretion can at least prevent the most serious abuses that can possibly arise. nothing can solve all our problems completely, but our goal should be to at least minimize them and reduce them relative to what might otherwise occur. >> senator, i agree.

i think one could devise such a court that would pass constitutional muster. i would note that many of the issues associated with the , targeting decisions, could be eliminated by focusing on a court -- if congress were to create a statutory court for damages for those who have been killed in abusive or mistaken it drone strikes, you could have a court that could review strikes after the fact that might eliminate a lot of problems associated with having judges acting in advance but still create a pretty good mechanism that would keep the executive branch honest -- as honest as we hope it is already and will continue to be in administration succumb. come.o i believe there is no reason why they would need to act in the extreme secrecy we have seen. there is no reason why you

could not have declassified portions of opinions. behink it would certainly one of the approaches that would go a very long way towards reassuring u.s. citizens and the world more generally that our policies are in compliance with the rule of law. >> the last question. in your statement, you key issues with the administration's current approach on drones. first, who the administration be targeted and how much proof they need. the administration's white paper did not answer these questions. we have seen the administration is reluctant to share its process with the american people. first, do you think it would be beneficial for the administration to publicly disclose its current drone targeting procedures so that the people know how those officials determined who to kill during

targeted drone strikes, and second, what do you think would be the proper burden of proof in these targeted drone strikes? >> they are both good questions. ine many of the panelists the subcommittee, i agree that it is desirable to disclose the criteria used, consistent with not disclosing classified methods and sources and the like. i think it is legitimate to ask the administration to do that. in terms of what the burden of proof should be, i am not sure i have a clear opinion on on an exact precise standard. realistically it should be lower than the beyond reasonable doubt standard we use in criminal cases because the nature of war probably does not allow proof to that high level. but it should certainly be more than a minimal level of proof. some scholars -- scholars have proposed various

standards of proof. we should aim for a standard that is realistic and also provides us with at least a substantial degree of confidence that we are not targeting people recklessly and that we have at least extensional and extensive intelligence backing the decision. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to our ranking member as well. wrestling with a lot of these profound questions. on a verying bipartisan basis, as you have seen. because we are struggling with issues not only of constitutional law but also of conscience and conviction and to mention the profound foreign-policy implications that may be involved. the witness for

giving us insight into the chilling unintended consequences of possible mistakes in this area. i have to assume they were unintended consequences because simply we have that faith in the good intentions of our military and of the decision-makers who are guiding this process. ,ut stepping back for a moment one question on my mind is whether it is the rules act the ,oal -- applicable to drones and they are in the title of this hearing, call them unmanned aerial vehicles or remotely piloted aircraft, whatever they are called, whether those rules really should be fundamentally different than they are for any targeted strike.

because, colonel, you pointed the decision is made to do a targeted strike, assuming that the decision is justified by imminent threat or other criteria, then we have a set of tactical weaponry at our disposal. maybe boots on the ground, fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, or artillery. remotely piloted aircraft are more precise, ,uicker, and more reliable with less cost both in terms of collateral damage and potential threat to our own troops. so i guess the question on my mind is, should the rules be any different for this new form of weaponry? the rules are obviously

different for a nuclear strike, in some sense. and we are developing rules for cyber warfare, as general cartwright has made the point very aptly and powerfully. colonel, andgin, then perhaps to you, general cartwright, knowing the nuts and of this this -- bolts kind of weaponry, should the rules be any different for remotely piloted aircraft, a term which i agree is more aptly describing, then other targeted strikes? is thatnk the answer the rules should not be different. remotely piloted aircraft is simply a tool to meet our objectives once we have decided we want to meet those objectives and it is legal to meet those objectives. this discussion reminds me after world war i when the pioneer of

air power, billy mitchell, was trying to make the case we could take out naval ships of the air. nobody could believe him and we thought it was ridiculous and there was a lot of angst over using the mutual of air power to meet our objectives. we eventually got to the point where we were comfortable using air power in certain circumstances versus ground forces or a naval gun fight to meet military objectives. i think this is a similar transformation we are going through. this discussion and the debate is all certainly worth having, and i think where we need to have our focus is the transparency on the legal argument and the transparency on the justification for our counterterrorism strategy for the use of lethal force. focus of their -- focus it there and keep the discussion about remotely piloted aircraft as a tool we are using that as an asymmetrical advantage we have. if we are in a fight is ok to have an asymmetrical advantage. you do not have to risk american lives to use lethal force, so

why would we when we have the capability to do it in a way that is cheaper, more persistent, and less risk to american lives? i think the rules should not be different and i think the discussion is worthy but i will also say that from a military process there are two elements we go through. one, how do we approve an individual to be an approved target? yousecond process, what do go through to actually get approval to strike conduct the strike? this is where i think we need to be focusing the discussion. right here, you could raise or lower the bar based on discussions here today of are we heading higher or lower levels, but from my experience there is a whole lot of scrutiny in the second part and we need to be focusing on the first part. >> do you agree, general? >> i do agree. i think one of the opportunities here that remotely piloted aircraft can do -- can offer us is there is more decision time

and therefore more review time and therefore a better opportunity to be sure. there are more eyes on the issue in an environment where they can make decisions. opportunity us an that we probably have not taken advantage of. conversely, anyone who is familiar with the history of war knows that abuses in the use of aircraft, carpet bombing orolving unintended damage perhaps sometimes intended damage to civilian population is endemic to the history of warfare. sometimes used by our enemies and sometimes in some instances, unfortunately used by the united states. we are dealing here with a set of questions that has persisted for some time. let me focus, again