e gotten worse and worry seeing this flood of young people and it's just tragic. it should not be happening. the first thing a law enforcement officer should seek to do is to create a climate that reduces lawlessness not encourage it is amazing to me. i want to push back a little bit with our chairman talking about excessive force and violence. i wish she would push back a little harder, mr. johnson. this is the kind of thing that is happening to your border patrol agent. they are being shot and pummels with large rocks. a rock hit an agent. i would offer that for the record. >> without objection. >> lawlessness begets violence. in san diego on numbers of years

ago they built the fence. there was violence and drugs. afterwards, both sides of the border are prospering. the lawlessness ended at that time and we have done better. have you? just ask you this. you did not say in her testimony today and nothing i have seen in your recording states is a clear message to the world i must not come illegally to america. have you said that any time recently? >> i have told my staff we need to consider all options to deal with this situation. i rule nothing out that is lawful. i want to know about every option. >> here in el salvador newspaper, the headline is extension of suspension of deportation. you extended the suspension of deportation.

secretary johnson. almost all agree that a child that crosses the border with their parents 3waswas not making an adult choice and should be treated differently from adult violators -- >> i still agree with that. >> it goes on to say the administration of president obama is suspending deportation. here another central american news outlet. the first paragraph says that americans who illegally cross the border into mexico say they are arriving at their final destination. that u.s. immigration officials are allowing central american women and children to freely enter the country. is that correct or not? >> i do not believe that is correct, no. >> this is what the lady said. this is in a spanish publication.

"it was easy to get there. i only had to walk 15 minutes with my daughter and i turned myself into immigration but was told that u.s. immigration was letting lots of women with kids into the united states." la presa in el salvador. obama on announced unified and coordinated response to humanitarian relief to children affected, including accommodation and medical treatment and transport. but he did not say and you did not even -- we said in this committee, do not come. it is unlawful. you cannot come to the country without permission. i ask you again, are you prepared to say that to the whole world? >> i am prepared to say that a parent should not send a child

across our southwest border. >> what kind of parent brings a child with them? >> because it is dangerous. because it is illegal and dangerous. >> will you pledge to enforce the law and send back people who come to the country unlawfully? >> i have pledged numerous times to enforce the law, senator. i do it every day. >> you did not say it in your opening and you have not" in the papers of saying that. >> we are deporting people at a rate of over 1000 today. >> you are familiar with the memo from deputy border chief i suppose on may 30 of this year, your oowwn deputy. you went over a minute and 12. it is 50 seconds over. can i ask for one additional minute mr. chairman? this is for -- he wrote your own deputy.

that was his draft. you probably altered it. he said if the federal government failed to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to enter illegally the u.s. the result would be greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entry. releasing low threat aliens on their only cognizance along with facilitating family reunification of unaccompanied a lien children in lieu of repatriation to their country of citizenship served as incentives for additional individuals to follow the same path. he goes on. "to stem the flow, consequences must he delivered for illegal

entry into the united states and for facilitating human smuggling either as a direct member of an alien smuggling organization or as a rabbit facilitator these consequences must be delivered both at the border and within the united states." do you agree with that? >> as i said in my opening statement, to deal with the situation in south texas we have had to take resources that are devoted to another task. we are calling on the entire government to address that situation so that my border patrol agent soon go back to patrolling the border. >> thank you very much, senator white house. thank you very much, secretary johnson, on your work. i was just down in mexico with cindy mccain on that important issue of sex and heroin trafficking. met with the attorney general

and we talked about this issue. i also have appreciated the efforts that mexico is starting to make just necessary to this which is to secure their own southern border. in addition to the work that has been going on to go after the drug cartels and capture of el chapo. there is work to be done. i wanted to take you further north because one of the things i learned in mexico is one way out of the silence and the things that is going on down there is to have a stronger north american economy, a new day in north america which means more and more regional coordination between canada, america, and mexico. as we compete with china, this is a major part of our economic growth to bring more jobs to america. every day we have 300,000 people crossing the u.s.-canadian border. two wasyy cross border trade amounts to two dollars billion a

day. they are a major trading partner, canada. $2 billion in trade. 3/4 of canada's good ares are sold in the u.s. yet we have border issues with canada. and they are not the border issues we have been hearing about. they are making it as easy as possible to facilitate the movement of people and goods with our number one partner in dealing with the ukraine and dealing with security. i know you understand this. one of the things having just been in canada this weekend with several senators as well as senator stepabenow we identify infrastructure issues on the border. the u.s. customs and border protection has received authorizations from congress to initiate highly programs to enter into public-private

partnerships and accept donations to help improve the efficiency of order crossings. i'm concerned these order crossings -- these border crossings have been given solely on the southern border. one border has been deemed in need of replacement. we are really interested in this public-private partnership. with energy and oil and everything else coming from canada as well as trade and the agriculture and trade going on. we think this is a smart investment. could you talk to me about why these programs are only in place on the southern border and can you commit to adding northern border sites for these partnerships as soon as possible? >> yes. a big part of my job notwithstanding everything we talked about so far in this hearing, is promoting lawful

tracde and travel, particularly in north america. i've had conversations along with our president with the mexican president, with the prime minister of canada at a summit that took place in mexico in february or march. i have had conversations with mr. blaney in canada about promoting trade and travel. it is a big part of this administration's agenda to develop trusted traveler programs. the president signed executive order on a single path for export import or possess into our federal agencies. i visited detroit and port heron. >> you are aware there is a windsor bridge issue. >> i have walked on the bridge, and i have seen the tractor-trailer backup.

and i have seen the situation in detroit and i believe that we need to expand the customs plaza capability in port huron. and we need to build a customs plaza in detroit. public-private partnerships are a good way to create -- to explore a w3ayay to get this done >> the canadians are doing a lot with public-private partnerships for their own infrastructure and are interested in this idea and i think we cannot be putting them just at the southern border. i have one last question. you've probably heard about the current plans call for the u.s. field office in bloomington, minnesota, to tomove to a location that is three miles from the nearest transportation option.

immigration services. i think you heard what happened here. the gsa made a major mistake. they saw a sign for a bus and they thought it was a public bus. and there is no bus service to that area. they have been helpful in meeting with us. as we are looking with legislation to make sure that us field offices are ac cessible. it really was a mistake. >> i have talked to senator franken about this. i am aware of the issue with this particular office. i agree that people should be encouraged to go to c.i.s. offices for every region unmentionable. so i agree they need to be accessible. i will look at this particular situation. >> i appreciate your good work. thank you.

>> thank you. >> senator cornman. >> good morning. good to see you. would you agree with me the transnational organizations that traffic human beings into the united states, they don't discriminate between economic migrants and people who they traffic for sex or other illegal purposes? would you agree with that? >> um that sounds right. i'm not sure i know the answer to that one. >> they are in the business to make money. >> yes sir. >> guns, drugs, people children adults. they don't discriminate. i think there is this misconception that somehow there is good immigration illegal immigration, and bad illegal immigration in the sense

that somehow these are separate pipelines, when in fact my impression is, to my knowledge it has now been taken over essentially by transnational criminal organizations, largely the cartels in mexico. and all of the horrors that you know and i know that these unaccompanied children are subjected to, they are subject to the tender mercies of these traffickers. so i want to ask you about two things. it came to my office recently. i appreciated after doing some investigation of detentions along the u.s.-mexican border. i appreciate the knowledge meant that you recognize this is a national security issue as well. in fact, 414,000 people were detained at the southwestern border last year from more than

100 different countries. do you agree with those figures? >> as you and i h i discussed , in the rio grande valley we are seeing an increasing number of illegal migrants coming from virtually all over the world including other continents. it's an increasingly diverse population. >> i appreciate your acknowledgment of that and your investigation of the facts. let me turn now to the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied minors. there have been several references to the internal summary prepared by asians in the field concerning a recent surge of unaccompanied minors. -- internal summary prepared by agents in the field concerning a recent surge of unaccompanied minors. they want to take advantage to a new u.s. law that grants a free

pass to children with unaccompanied minors. when people are detained, they are given a notice to appear in a court setting by border patrol. 90% of them never show back up. the percentage of subjects interviewed stated their family members in the u.s. urged them to travel immediately because the united states was only issuing immigration free passes until the end of june, 2014. so you previously knowledge that there is no legal way to enter the united states. there is no free pass under the law.is that right ? >> there is a legal way to enter the united states. migration you are talking about is not legal. >> you're right. thank you for correcting my statement. i meant there is no way for

these minor children to illegally enter the united states in a way that the 47,000 that have visited since october have been doing. >> that is correct. >> ok. so i would suggest you there is this perception that the executive branch of the federal government is not enforcing the law because of talks about easing deportations and repatriations. and the there are no -- the perception is there are no consequences to illegally entering the united states. if that is the perception, the flood of humanity will continue and contribute to this humanitarian crisis that we have been talking about this morning. i would just suggest to you that as you deliberate these matters and as you consult with congress and the president that this is one of the biggest obstacles to immigration reform.

because if the perception is both domestically and in other countries that the federal government is not committed to enforcing our own laws, then this flood will continue and divide and distrust will grow even more. so i one final point. so if this entry of 47,000 children who come unaccompanied who have been detained since october, if that's not legal under u.s. law, i do not understand the argument that if we just somehow passed the senate immigration bill that would have a positive impact on this humanitarian crisis. you're not suggesting that we need to pass a mother law in,

that would have prevented this crisis? >> first of all, the document that you read from i have never seen. it is a draft document. i do not know that i agree with the assessment there. >> there are interviews with 230 people detained. >> i have never seen the document. >> will you take a look at it and tell us whether you think it is authentic? >> enough people have referred to it that i assume i will look at it. i do not agree that that is the motivator for the children coming into south texas. i think it is the conditions in the countries that they are leaving from. i do believe that if comprehensive immigration reform is passed, the uncertainty that may be existing in people's minds about our law gets results and it will be clear to people

that the earned path to citizenship only applies to people who came here before year end 2011. same thing with daca. it refers to people who came here in 2007. it does not refer to people who came here today or yesterday. the perception i do not think is correct. i know that anyone who was apprehended on the border is a priority. >> mr. secretary, this is my last question or statement. i would suggests that as a person who believes we need to pass a bill to fix our broken immigration laws, that the single biggest impediment to collaboration between congress and the executive branch to get that done, we may not agree about the details but we, i think we agree they need to get to that solution. the biggest impediment is perception that the president and this administration will not

enforce whatever laws that congress would pass. so that is a real rob problem. it has helped induce this humanitarian crisis in this flood of unaccompanied children that is very dangerous to them and their families and created a real crisis. th for your response to my questionsank you. >> before i call upon senator kuntz, i would like to ask everyone to be aware of the time limits for questioning because there are people who are waiting. senator kuntz? >> thank you. thank you, secretary, for your cvs and your leadership of the department and for your testimony today. i want to touch on a number of different issues. ag inspections and cyber crime. a number of issues. thatrelate to deportation practices that me start with those. let me start with those. i want to make sure i am getting

an update on where we are. first in deportation proceedings, aliens are not provided what is called the a-file but have to file four yer requestar -- four year requests. has dhs begun to provide a-files to a list facing deportation? >> you are correct. i do not know the status of that issue right now but i can get back to you. >> i've also discussed with you laterally page duration -- lateral repatriation which is a polite way of describing nighttime deportations. folks facing deportation into dangerous locales a very difficult timest. i think it violates basic human rights and some of our international agreements. i wonder if dhs has supplemented

procedures to be sure the deportations are done in a manner that does not jeopardize the lives of minors. >> we are working with the mexican government on this issue. this is been the discussion between our two governments. often it involves coordination and logistics. we have a policy going back to 2004 that we are not separating families or move vulnerable population at late-night hours which i believe is a good policy. i intend to reiterate it. >> i have heard from the faith community, from advocates that they continue to see significant impact on vulnerable families due to the a-tip policy. last on the list of sensitive locations for enforcement actions, courts are not on that list and i've received some concern reports that immigration enforcement which occurs right at or around courthouses deters

women from seeking protection from abuse orders or folks who are applying for relief from landlords. i wonder what steps dhs has taken to assess the appropriateness of enforcement actions taken in court houses to ensure they are only taken an exceptional circumstances where there is some justification rather than in the broader arrangement -- range of cases. >> your are correct that courthouses have not been on the sensitive list. i know that some months ago i determined to put courthouses in a special category deserving of some sort of special treatment. i agree that courthouses are a special place in the nature of a church, but i can see for reasons of public safety why any

law enforcement officer would feel compelled to take action with regard to an individual in the courthouse. i have asked our courts to better develop an exception with regard to courthouses. >> thank you. we have also talked about customs and border in terms of our time for inspections related to agriculture. the port of wellington have folks who would like to pay overtime so that when shiploads of produce arrive they can get inspections in a timely fashion. this is subject to a very complicated interagency budgetary issue. my understanding is that we have made progress in terms of promulgation of the relevant regulation that would now allow fee increases for overtime services. is this something that to understanding the cdc ag inspectors are able to work with the department on and your hopeful we are going to make some progress before this very busy upcoming fruit season? >> i believe so. >> that would be great.

last question. cyber crime. it's an area of primary focus for you and for the department. it causes enormous cost, negative impacts on our society. i recommend to you the role that the international guard can play in terms of providing a qualifying workforce that is able to be a resource both for national security purposes and for state and local preparation reasons. i just wondered how the national guard model fits into the department strategy, your strategy to meet the threat posed by cyber crime? >> the into national guard. >> the 166 network workers squadron would welcome a visit. >> that. is a worthwhile inquiry >> i look forward to following up with you on these issues. >> senator? >> i appreciate your being here.

appreciate what you're doing. my question, as you know, this comes from someone who has supported immigration reform. i just want to follow-up on some of the questioning some of my colleagues have done about the motivation of people coming. when you look at the numbers, it is just staggering. as you have said, and it has created a humanitarian disaster. when we involve fema, for something like this, this denotes disaster. we ought to be looking at the causes of it. we know some of the causes as you explained. the economic situation in these countries. the drug activity and cartels. on safety and gangs leads to it.

but reject out of handt which you seem to be doing that the perception of lax enforcement is not a a motivator in this regard i think is naïve at best and very destructive at worst. and when you look at a numbers thes aree are otm apprehensions other than mexican apprehensions. october of last year, 14,000 during that month. november 14 thousand. december 14 thousand. january 12,000. february 16,000. relatively straight. then comes march, right around the time of the deportation review that was undertaken by the administration. word like this spreads and word spreads there will be a review of deportation.

and then, we look. march otm stay steady at 14,000. april 20 6000. -- april 26,000. can you allow a little that there might be a perception that lax enforcement might be some motivator for people to come here? >> i can't control people's perceptions. and i do not have a categorical sneseense of people's perceptions and central america. i do believe what is principally motivating this migration are as you noted the conditions in the central american countries. i also believe that people are aware that when their kids come in to this country unaccompanied we are required by law to give them to hhs.

hhs is required by law to act in the best interests of the child which very often means uniting them with the parent. i think they know that. >> i think they do as well. when you look at the interviews that are being conducted and you see the statements of people saying they are waving down helicopters when they see federal helicopters. waving them down. rushing to border patrol agent said saying, take me. there is a perception of lax enforcement that will allow them to get a foothold here. that i would submit is one of the motivators and a big one in why we are having such a massive increase in unaccompanied minors and people from these countries that we are talking about. i don't think this is a blow to your ego, but what you say on these matters in those countries to these ambassadors or two

media outlets in guatemala or el salvador or honduras does not matter as much as what the president says. and it would be extremely helpful in my view and in the view of many as senator mccain and myself to send thea letter to the president to make a statement, let people know that those that are coming our subject to deportation. that daca and these other rules that may be reviewed will not apply to people coming now. do you think that would be a good idea for the president to make such a statement and for us to follow with public relations efforts in these countries? >> first of all, nothing anymore is a blow to my ego. i dxoo think that a robust public relations campaign in some form is vital. i do agree with that. whether it is the president or

officials from their own countries or what have you, i do believe that a robust aggressive public relations campaign needs to be part of our strategy. >> i hope that is the case. i have many questions about what is going on in arizona. i was struck by one thing you said. you said you hope the border control can go back to patrolling the border. that is extremely disturbing to those of us in border states that how many border virtual agents are being pulled from border patrol to process unaccompanied minors. wh percentagea oft the forces being pulled away from those duties in arizona and texas? >> i do not have an exact percentage. we have had to use resources to process these kids. there are many people on the border contacting border patrol activities. and i believe with the added

resources we are getting from other agencies these folks are a ble to return full-time to their normal responsibilities. >> let me close saying i hope the president in particular and you as well will make such a statement, continue to make such a statement. and then launch a public relations effort in these countries letting them know that people who come here will be subject to deportation, that they will not be able to participate in the policies the administration has pursued or the legislation that this body, the senate, has passed in the congress will hopefully pass. thank you for your work. >> senator, if i may, one other thing i would like to add. i remember from the qfr's you sent me the statements of your constituents, the ranchers. one of the first things i did when i got into the office i went to visit them in arizona. it is fair to say we had a good conversation.

i wanted to understand their border security concerns. so i went down there. they are a terrific bunch of people. >> they appreciate that. they told me that. i appreciate in my office does the manner in which you have answered questions . it is a bit of a departure from what we have seen before, and i'm very happy to see that and have been please with your response and the seriousness with which you take this job. so thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. clearly all of us are concerned about the influx of unaccompanied minors crossing the border. that is a multifaceted problem with no easy solution. leading to a level for conditions you have declared. i would like to ask it in the coming weeks to work with me and other colleagues who are interested in enabling us to travel to see some of these facilities.

i think that would enable us to really better grasp the enormity of this crisis situation. turning to prosecutorial discretion. i'm looking at your morton memo which enumerates 19 factors and exercising prosecutorial discretion regarding numerous immigration procedures including deportation. of the 400,000 or so deportations that dhhs is carrying out each years, do you have data on how many of these are people who are being deported or could receive prosecutorial discretion? based on things such as family ties or community ties? >> um, there are ways to make that statistical assessment. and we are in the midst of doing that right now as part of my review of our enforcement policies.

i think the data in years past has not been clear. one of the things i would like to do is to make the data clearer, be more forthcoming each year and correlate the data to the individual priorities in the morning memo -- in the morton memo. i think we can do a better job there. i think we need clear guidance. when you say that morton memo it is unclear to me whether you are referring to the march or the june memo. >> there are various iterations of enabling your agents across the board to exercise prosecutorial discretion. so i'd really like to understand of the 400,000 deportations who actually are being deported. for example, i get concerned when recent reports indicate that ice field offices in

detroit is placing people with strong family ties without a criminal record into deportation proceedings. it is reminiscent of what has been coming out regarding the veterans administration. it is one thing to have a policy, such as the morton memo. but it is another to what is actually going on out in the field and the exercise of that discretion. i recognize the moetonrton memo says these are guidelines and your agents, you can prosecute people who are here illegally. in terms of scarce resources, and your establishment of priorities we ought to be enforcing our laws. it would be good for us to have that breakdown from you. so i would like to request it. >> one of the things i've learned from my department of defense experiences clear guidance is indispensable.

if you do not issue clear guidance in the field, then how it's implemented is not going to look at all like what you intended. so d.o.d., whenever they issue new guidance, they always socialize, trained it to the field, down the chain of command. i have spent a lot of time talking to our workforce about how to better implement policy changes that are issued in washington how to socialize them and i'm determined to do a better job. >> good. my understanding is that under the daca program some 500,000 young people have come forward to anticipate. there are now, many of them are now in the renewal process because daca has to be renewed every two years. i understand the department, your department is suggesting that applicants apply for renewal of -- up to four months before the expiration of the two year term.

that is to give them enough time so there is no gap which would subject them to deportation. so what is your department doing to ensure that renewals are handled expeditiously? and what is your department planning to do it processing delays lead to lapses in status? >> we have been. for this for some time now. and one of the things where doing is we are not requiring individuals to submit all the same documentation they submitted two years ago, unless there has been some new event in their life like criminal conviction or something. but we're not requiring individuals to go back and submit the very same paperwork all over again. and you are correct that we had over 600,000 applicants two years ago. about 500 applications were granted.

that is a large number of people we were able to get to the system. so i believe in the renewal process that good work will continue. >> i'd like to stay in touch with you regarding how that is going, because a half million is a lot of people. thank you very much. >> it is sender lee -- senator lee. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you, secretary johnson for joining us today. thank you for your efforts on behalf of our country. you have got a tough job. one attribute of this administration that has caused a lot of people concerned is a tendency to some of the search within the administration to in

affect modify existing statute by executive fiat, sometimes through executive order. other times through executive memoranda. as you know, in youngstown vs. sawyer, justice jackson came up with the three-part analysis that is pretty simple and can be applied to a lot of circumstances. it's reiterated by the court. the analysis is that in category i, when the president acts pursuant to authorization by congress his power is said to be at its zenith. his power is said to be at its twilight in a twilight zone where it can be a little bit unclear where the president acts either in the absence of a particular congressional

authorization or in the absence of a particular congressional prohibition. the president's authority is at its lowest ebb when the president acts in a manner that is prohibited by congress in a statutory directive. now, using theories of prosecutorial discretion, the morton memoranda that was described earlier and the daca program have been criticized as an effort to mount a de facto legislative implementation of certain legislative proposals that were considered and rejected by congress. and congress has not ever adopted because as implemented they effectively i'm told if an immigrant meets these

characteristics, we do not want you enforcing them law. would you agree that if that is the case to the extent that is the case -- hypothetically that it could be the case -- where would that put us in justice jackson's three-part analysis? >> first of all, i wrote a paper about dame amd mnd moore in law school. what you laid out, i have quoted often when i was the senior lawyer for the department of defense and the war powers context. president's war powers are at their zenith when he is acting, committing military pursuant to statutory authorization. so we applied and construed the

aumf a lot. why was the general counsel of the department of defense -- while i was the general counsel of the department of defense. i believe the moton meo could be clear. i believe in the notion of prosecutorial discretion. in my conversations with the e.r.o. workforce, we have agreed that they should be devoting their time and effort and resources that they have to going after enforcing against the worst of the worst. the question is how do you find the worst of the worst and where do you draw the line? >> that is why prosecutorial discretion is necessary. we have resources -- we cannot expect people to do it all. normally, as you know, based not only on the position you held but the one you held in the department of defense but also your former position as a u.s. attorney prosecutorial

discretion usually means discretion. it leaves significant amount of discretion in the hands of the prosecutor to figure out where best to allocate those resources. or the prosecutor's boss. where you have got a directive assuming there is such a directive, i have been told the directive is eating carried out in this fashion where you have got agents on the ground being told do not enforce the law in this entire category. i think that is different than prosecutorial discretion, isn't it? isn't that a mandate not to enforce the law? >> when i was an a.u.s.a. in 1989 1990, 1991, leaves to make an effort to get to 1000 indictments a year. there would be a push towards the end to get over 1000. you can do that very easily if you prosecute a lot of marijuana cases, but we were not focused

on marijuana. we were focused on the crack epidemic going on in new york city. if we have focused on marijuana cases, we would get to 1000 in diamonds by the month of march but that would not be the most effective enforcement of our federal narcotics laws. so i think that that principle translates into the removal enforcement context. i believe very much that you can and we ought to be able to do that. the question is how and where do you draw the line and where do you prioritize and where you don't. i do not think that necessarily amounts to, and i do not believe it has amounted to simply declaring off-limits large categories of people. >> i understand the point. i see my time is expired. my concern is that when you have a national memoranda with national impact and when agents i am informed are being told on the ground, do not enforce the law where these circumstances

are present. that is meaningfully, legally constitutionally different than what you described where an individual office has so many prosecutors and agents. and so many resources to devote. and they have maintained some true discretion to decide how, when, to what extent to enforce laws what circumstances are going to trigger the use of those resources. what we're talking about is a national memorandum that i am told is being implemented nationally so as to right off entire provisions of federal law. to the extent that is happening that is very troubling and different than what you describe. think you, mr. chairman. i see my time has expired -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. secretary johnson, thanks for being here. i would like to address an aspect of the unaccompanied children's issue that i do not

know has come up during the course of this hearing. there are main reasons the children are crossing the border. an l.a. times writer won a: surprise for her book -- won a pulitzer prize for "enrique's journey." she was referring to 48,000 children as youn g as 7 crossing our border, over half of them by themselves. the reason they were crossing the border was not on its face obvious. it was not something said by the president or by congress or by politicians or maybe the things that might come to mind. they were looking for their mothers. looking for their mothers. and that i believe has led them to do things that are

unimaginable to those of us with children or grandchildren. to think that the child as young as seven would hop a freight train and what they found as a result of looking at this at the university of houston they found that these kids as they were coming into the united states were cold, hungry helpless half of them unaccompanied, hunted like bandits. a study found that most of been robbed, beaten rate, usually several times -- raped. some killed and maimed by these railroad trains. that to me cannot be overlooked in this conversation. and before we start asking for pronouncements from the president, let us stop and reflect as fathers and grandfathers about these navies and the children who -- these babies and these children who are desperate to find their

mothers in america. if this is not a searing indictment for the need for change i cannot think of anything that is. i want to thank senator flank. he and i set together for many months working on a comprehensive immigration bill. your heart is in the right place, senator. though we may come out differently on this issue, i know where you are because you and i both work for that bill. now we have got to pass that he'll. in the meantime, you came to see me on your path to this position. i asked you for two things. i asked you to come to a detention facility and to meet those who are about to be deported and you said you would and friday you are going to. in illinois at the broadview detention facility just outside chicago. i welcome you. i will be there to greet you and you will meet with local people and share your thoughts about the current deportation policy. the president has said he wants congress to act on comprehensive

immigration reform and he is basically withholding decisions that can be made by the executive in the hopes that congress will do this before the end of july. in the meantime, i hope you are in the process of reviewing our deportation policy. what can you say to us today about these two quotations? >> first, i look forward to visiting the detention center in chicago. the whole reason i'm going is because you mentioned this to me when we had our first visit together. and i believe very much in the role that i should have in viewing our detention conditions. something that did at dod. the one we are going to friday is not the first one i have been to. as i mentioned in my opening statement, i have been to mccowan station, texas, with my wife who was sitting right there to see these children on mother's day. one of them told me something

almost exactly like what you said. i asked her, where is your mother? she said, i do not have a mother. i am looking for my father. i encountered this in a very personal way and i understand it. the review that i am undertaking is comprehensive. i'm talking to our workforce about our policies and how they believe we can more effectively implement our policies. i am also talking to large groups of people on the outside across the spectrum on better more effective enforcement policies. i believe we can do a better job. i believe we can have clear guidance and i believe we can better trained to the workforce. that is my overarching goal, senator. >> i thiankank you. 40% of those deported have no

criminal record. at least that is the case if you -- a few years ago. those with criminal records have lost their right as far as i'm concerned to even be considered at this moment. but those without criminal records and technical immigration violations many times were breaking up families, families where many american citizens are in that household children and spouses and families are being broken up. i think we are better than that. i think we keep america safe. we can honor our laws and yet enforce them in a fashion that is truly american, a nation of immigrants that should be proud of its heritage and i thank you for your public service. >> senator cruz? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for your service. there is no job more important than the administration of protecting our homeland. i appreciate your service in this very important role. i would notice we discuss

immigration, i myself anm a son of an immigrant from cuba and, passionate advocate for legal immigration. but are the same time i think much of the discussion of immigration ignores disregards the humanitarian crisis that is caused by illegal immigration. as you know, i represent the state of texas and the state of texas immigration is not something abstract and theoretical that we read about in newspapers. immigration is something that we deal with every day. a legal immigration is a something that is texans we deal with everyday. the humanitarian crisis that comes from our failure to secure the borders is staggering. in 2013, border patrol reported

the crimes have encountered. most of the cases were those who came here illegally were the victims, so there were 2346 rescues. 461 assaults at 445 deaths. indeed, last year's i received a letter from one of my constituents, a veterinarian who has worked with ranchers, texas and mexican ranchers his entire life. this veterinarian wrote "i live in a ranch with my wife. in 2012, 129 bodies of illegal immigrants were found within 15 minutes of our front door in any given direction. we believe those bodies represent only 25% of the actual number of illegal immigrants dying in this area.

in one week of last july, i personally rescued 15 people. most were sent to americans that were lost in close to dying from dehydration and heat exhaustion. that same week, i found a deceased person that had been laid across a dirt road in order to be found. he was a 31-year-old man from el salvador. this is a humanitarian crisis." that we have a legal system in place that is failing to secure the border and that is incentivizing people crossing illegally. and secondly, we have in particular humanitarian crisis with respect to unaccompanied minors. that is a crisis that is a direct consequence of policies of the obama administration. in 2011, there were roughly 7000 unaccompanied minors apprehended. in 2012, that number rose to

14,000. in 2013, it rose to 24,000. in 2014, it is estimated to be as high as 90,000. in 2015, the administration is estimating it will rise all the way to 145,000. it is important to understand what these numbers represent. they represent children, little boys and little girls that their parents are handing over not to some noble social worker trying to help them. they are handing over to international criminal cartels that smuggle human beings in. they put these kids on top of fast-moving freight trains. these are criminals who sexually and physically assault and who sometimes murder these children. these are little girls that are sometimes being sold into prostitution and sex sl

avery. mr. secretary, you testify to this committee that the increase is a result of violence and central america. there is surely violence in central america, but if you look at the statistics, in particular, you can see where they were, these unaccompanied minors in 2011. midway through 2012 is when the administration granted amnesty to 800,000 people fled then minors. the daca proceedings. shortly after that, the numbers spiked to radically. -- dramatically. is it really your testimony that granting amnesty to 800,000 people who came illegally as children has no effect in causing an increase in children being handed over to international cartels to be smuggled in illegally? >> first daca is not amnesty.

it is deferred action. daca of lies only to people who came into this country prior to june, 2007, 7 years ago. daca does not apply to anybody who comes into this country today, tomorrow, or yesterday. he earned path to citizenship contemplated in the senate bill does not apply to any audio who comes into this country today, tomorrow, or yesterday. it applies to people who came into this country by year-end 2011. i believe senator, that the primary motivator for the reason for this spike in migration, and i am not a sociologist, is the situations that senator durbin and others have laid out in these countries. >> my time is expiring but with all respect in my view that argument is a red herring.

that argument explains why we have seen an increase in central american immigration because of the problems and challenges those nations are facing. but it does not explain the unaccompanied minors. in 2011 15th in 2014 that number has grown to 37%. there is nothing about islands in central america that would cause people to be handing over their children, little girls and little boys separately. it will cause more people -- cause more people to come there from central america, but not the kids. and it is been widely reported to president obama that the administration is contemplating yet another amnesty like just a couple of months before the upcoming election. and i will say to you and i will urge you to pass on to the president that i think that would be a grave mistake. i think you will be contrary to the rule of law and i think granting yet another amnesty

would result in those numbers going even higher, would result in even more little girls and little boys being subject to violence and horrific, dangerous conditions. and it would be a serious mistake to go down that road. thank you. >> thank you, senator cruz. senator schumer. >> thank you and thank you secretary johnson. i'm very glad you are there and you are off to a great start and i would not expect anything less from a new yorker although i heard that senator menendez claimed she was in new jersey so i guess we will have to share you. i have a couple of question. >> i pay taxes in both jurisdictions. >> good. or not so good, i don't know how we answer that one. earlier this year it due to bat blog it was taking a year to process the i 130 applications. that is where u.s. citizens

petition to bring their immediate relatives into the country. early this year i sent to a letter on the shearing you did a great job getting rid of some of the backlog. i still have some of the cases in my office where men and women in uniform had -- i had to wait up to it year to be reunited with their relatives. i think it is unfair that our veterans are getting caught in the backlog. they more than anyone else deserved to be united with their loved ones in a support system as soon as possible. it depends on world events but i think there should never be a time when veterans have to wait more than six months to reunite with their families. would you be willing to commit to creating a special process to make sure that the actual rosses in time for veterans never takes longer than six months? >> senator, i am aware of your interest in this issue.

i do believe that we should do everything we can to make life easier for our veterans, those who have served in uniform. i think we should be -- i think we should pay attention to their situation. >> six months, i don't know whether that is feasible. >> can we work toward making it happen? rex i have talked to my staff about this issue and i agree that we should work to help military. >> you agree that we should expedite things for our veterans. >> yes sir. >> on a more parochial issue but one of great interest to the western portion of my state -- the buffalo bills. they are an important -- what do they have to do with you question mark you'll find out in a minute. they are an economic engine, but many of their fans are in canada

but do not come to games because they have to travel through our ports of entry on game days. normal sundays not much traffic. but when the bills game, there is a huge amount of traffic. and yet the staffing levels at the border do not take that into account. so we had huge backlog and many people stop coming because they miss the game. you have done a great job adding new agents to the port of entries in western new york. we talked about that. you have acted on it and i thank you for that. the question is now whether with these new agents and resources can we make it easier for canadians to attend bills games on eight sundays of the year in which the games are in buffalo? it would be a huge boost to western new york's economy. and can we do things like making sure that we have rhenium staffing on the bridge on the three hours before the game on game day and having created a

set up at the stadium during the bills game so that fans can sign up and conduct exit interviews so that they can use that exit lanes for future games to speed up things for everybody? the only way we know who is a bills game that -- bills fan is when we see them. bringing them the bills games would make it easier for thousands of fans to get the card. and next thing, finally would you agree to meet with whoever the next owner is question mark we are looking for new owner for the bills. myself the congressional delegation, the governor, the county executive, the mayor, to make sure the bills stay in buffalo and so we are going to have a new owner. one of the things would be helpful if you would agree to meet with the next owner to develop a comprehensive plan to slow the speed of traffic on game day. >> my answer concerning getting bills fans to bills games

depends entirely on who they are playing. just kidding. >> they don't win that much. we wish they one more. >> senator, i think you know that we have spent a lot of time working on expediting travel across the northern border. the peace bridge, i've been to detroit, i've been the port huron, looking at the backlog over the bridge and candace miller's district, and so i appreciate the importance of expediting travel across the few bridges we have on the northern border and i want to help out the situation there. whether it is meeting the bills owner or not, i mean, i would be happy to meet the bills owner at some point. but i want to work with you on this. >> so would you look into these two things, aside from the meeting question mark rhenium staffing on game day, not the

full day, just for the hour before the game, and the possibility of having the a just do an exit set up at the stadium on game day? rex i will look into it. we have limited numbers of people. >> i know, but the cause of our increase in the budget, and because you are good enough to put some of them on the niagara frontier, we have more than we had before which i think makes it possible to do these things. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i have a number of questions for you and i think senator slade has a few questions -- senator flake has some questions and that should end our hearing. thank you for your patience and for your service. in march of this year, you may or may not recall, i wrote you about the detention policies and practices of your agencies. and i expressed a number of concerns regarding the detention of literally hundreds of thousands of people. we had five

times the number detained 20 years ago. i know they your hearing from both sides on this issue. the contention that we heard this morning, i think it emphasizes the importance of passing immigration reform so that we can address many of these questions. my concern expressed in march is then she'll -- essentially dealt with the excessive detention of a time, all the time -- long-time permanent residents who are kept in the tension without any opportunity to appear before a judge and a bond hearing to protect attain these rights as you well know. so the lack of bond hearings for thousands of immigrants is a real concern for many of us, including myself.

so let me reiterate the question that i asked. is there a way for the department of homeland security to work with the department of justice to provide for immigration judge on hearings to all individuals detained by the department after no more than six months of detention? that is the time the supreme court has held it -- is presumptively reasonable. >> i remember your letters. i hope i have responded do it by now. if i am not, i have -- i apologize. >> you have responded to it or i should correct myself, you did not personally. the agency did in the person of thomas when cal skate, the principled deputy who said in effect and i may not be doing full justice to the letter, that

the issues raised in my letter this is one of them, require consultation with our partners at doj am including the executive office for immigration review. that was back in mid april. rex there was a case in the ninth circuit, rodriguez, that was decided last year. and it is under review right now in doj and dhs, and we are considering whether to petition for cert in the case. and it directly implicates this issue. there is a mandatory issued detention for individuals. and i believe it says that after a six-month periodic there should be a bond hearing in certain circumstances. so the cases under review right now.

my general view is that we need to enforce statutes unless are until they are declared unconstitutional, but the cases under review right now. so it is something that we are actively looking at. rex in my view, mr. secretary you had the discretion right now. the fact that it does not require that you deny bond hearings, and that, the better view of the policy year, i was a just respectfully as i did in my letter, is that you grant the bond hearings. and let me also say that there is the other question raised in my letter, will whether the definition of custody can be expanded to include alternatives to detention. alternatives that would prevent flight, where detainees are not in any way a risk to public safety.

so those are two proposals that i have advanced him and not original to me, that would comply with statute. it would not require court decision. it would not implicate a necessity for you to wait for court decision. >> i am aware of that question. about the definition of custody. i recall that you asked that question and i know it is under review right now. on this issue, i cannot do anything without lawyers. >> and i am not going to press you because i can sense from your response that you are at -- well let me put it this way, i hope you will get back to me about this in a timely way. let me ask you finally -- i have heard from a great many of

connecticut constituents who have mixed status. part of their amazon here illegally, sometimes the children have been born here sometime they have children who have been brought here as infants or very young children and have been graded -- granted daca status. they live in fear of having other family members deported. i will like to ask you the question that has been asked in slightly different terms, maybe with a different viewpoint. are you considering expanding daca to include more young people who were brought here as children and who have ties to our communities that made -- but nate -- but nate -- but may not be all that daca requires question mark some have passed their 31st birthday, or because they had to leave the country at some point after 2007, due to

extraordinary circumstances. >> the president asked me to undertake a review in march of our enforcement priorities. i am still undertaking that review. it has encompassed a number of things. i have not reached conclusions yet. as you know i am sure from public accounts, press accounts, he has asked me to wait to see what congress does with comprehensive immigration reform before a report the results of my review. but i'm reviewing a number of different things and i have not reached any firm conclusions at this time. x i appreciate that answer. i would just urge having listened and met and come to know many of the connecticut young people who unfortunately are excluded from this deferred active status, who have lived here and studied in connecticut

and whose lives are here, that you would expand the daca status the deferred action status, if the congress fails to act. my hope is that congress will act. >> i hope the two. >> i know we share that view. if it fails to do so, i would strongly urge that the deferred action status be expanded. senator flake. >> thank you and i appreciate your indulgence in joining us. a couple of arizona -- specific questions. and talking about motivations of people coming here. that is usually the primary motivation, the situation in their home country. i would have to say that that conflicts with an internal unreleased document that i believe you have a copy of now that has been cited by the media where interviews were done in the rio grande valley by the secretary -- intelligence

analysts interviewing 230 family units that have come across for this was in may 28, 2014 when this report was released. asking the main purpose of it to quote the report, was to determine the facts compelling them to migrate to the united states in addition to other migration issues. and it says that of those 230 a high percentage of the subdivision of units that their family members in the u.s. urge them to travel immediately because the united states government was only issuing immigration pretty sows until the end of 2014. obviously that is bad information but they believed -- that there is lax enforcement are some new program that needs to be addressed by this administration to lakes -- to

let people know that that is not the case. the issue was that the main reason provided by 95% -- 95% of the interviewed subjects. you want to talk about the primary reason that 95% seems like more of a primary reason than the economic or security situation in their country. the second reason was related to the increase of gang related violence in central america. but 95% listed in that the private region of expectation of a program that would allow them to stay. i what a deep lead with the administration, the president needs to state unequivocally that those who come here will not be able to say that they will not call upon under daca or any other program any deportation policy review will not contemplate allowing them to stay. that would be, i would think

incredibly helpful and if you could relay that message back to the president, we are trying to do so as well. but with regard to arizona, you mentioned that people were being pulled off the line. i think in arizona, i have staff down at the no dallas facility they mentioned that as many as 200 officers were being to -- utilize to process these unaccompanied children. that is going to pull people off of the line. what are we doing in terms of additional resources for arizona and the tucson sector? race sex including reassigning people from the interior, i can get back to you with a more detailed breakdown work allocation and so forth.

it is possible that a border patrol officer or agent could be involved in the processing of a migrant near the border even in regular circumstances but no doubt this urge has required that we reallocate, that we ask people to do things they don't normally do in addition to the normal responsibilities, and we are trying to work his restore the equilibrium. i agree with you that our border security personnel need to focus on border security. i am the first one to it knowledge that. >> the document -- a number of people here have referred to it. i am not familiar with them. i don't know how reliable the survey is. i keep hearing that i am going to have it and that i can read it. i just do not know reliable it is. i tend to agree with senator

durbin that a seven-year-old child, the principal motivation is circumstances that they are leaving and they want to be with their mother and their father. >> not many 10-year-olds and seven-year-olds are actually climbing on a bus or a train or a loan from guatemala. it is usually kids older than that were mothers taking them in. one of the question, ice is responsible for a family unit and putting them at a bus stop and some of that was happening in arizona. is that happening anymore? >> my understanding is that with regard to nogales, the individuals we are now sending their are the unaccompanied children who under the law have to go to hhs and whether it is possible that we need to send more family units to their core

processing, i cannot rule that out, but since about june 1, we have been sending principally if not exclusively the unaccompanied children tonogales for processing. >> when ice takes a family unit to a bus stop and drops them off with in order to appear at a place and time, what care is being taken to make sure that that is actually of family unit question mark we hear anecdotal evidence that a 15-year-old says that a apart of the family and then they get dropped off and say see you later. is ice required to do due diligence to make sure that it is a family? >> i'm sure that there are some kind of protocol in place to ensure that a group of people who claim to be a family union are in fact a family unit. but i am sitting here and do not know what that is. >> thank you for your indulgence. appreciate it. >> thank you, mr.

secretary. i'm going to close this hearing. the record will be kept open for one week. we thank you very much for your service and for your very helpful and forthright testimony today. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> president obama talking about u.s. options in a rock. then live at 7 a.m., your calls and comments on washington journal. on newsmakers, house democratic caucus chair california congressman xavier becerra. he talks about eric cantor's department from leadership and how it could affect the legislative agenda and prospects for passage of legislation.

newsmakers live sunday at 10 a.m. and showing it again at 6 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the things people don't always recognize is that during the war of 1812, it was really about the america reestablishing its independence against the british. this was sort of our second american revolution. and this flag is the object for which francis scott key penned the words which became our national anthem. >> the image in 1995 that the flag was made to look whole and restored. and there's the whole bottom section that was reconstructed. when the flag was moved into the space, there was a deliberate decision by the curator not to

do that again and the flag stood for the country. it is tattered and torn but is still survived and the message is the survival of the country in the flag. and we are not changing it to look pretty. we are trying to make it look like it has endured its history and is can celebrate its history. >> this year marks the 200th anniversary of the and british naval on bar month during the war of 1812. learn more about the plight that francis scott key wrote about at the smithsonian star-spangled banner exhibit. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span three. >> the washington institute -- >> the washington institute held a panel discussion analyzing the escalating violence in iraq. including a former u.s. ambassador, james jeffrey. this is about an hour and 20

minutes. >> good afternoon. welcome to the washington institute. i am the director of the institute. thank you very much for joining us on short notice. thank you very much for joining us on short notice. this is an event we wish we were not convening at the institute. event we called on short notice to address the issues of the day. we titled this iraq's dire situation. my view is it is an understatement. churchill might have said that this is a debacle wrapped in a tragedy inside of a catastrophe. even that might be only a bit approaching the reality of the situation.

churchill might have said that this is a debacle wrapped in a tragedy inside of a catastrophe. even that might be only a bit approaching the reality of the situation. facing the iraqi people and american interests. i'm very pleased that we at the washington institute have a deep bench of expertise to bring to bear on understanding the situation in iraq and more broadly today offering suggestions to address the situation between the government of iraq and the united states. the united states and its allies around the region. and the messaging from washington throughout the middle east and i'm very pleased to recognize the ambassador from iraq here today. i know you have a lot on your plate and i'm delighted you are with us today. let me introduce our paneslists.

first, i am pleased to introduce jim jeffrey. jim served the united states with distinction as ambassador in baghdad. in additon to service in ankara, he was ambassador in albania. he was the deputy national security advisor. he has a lifetime of experience in american foreign policy and diplomacy. based on the original foundation of military experience that hearkened all the way back to vietnam. perhaps not a metaphor for today's events, but perhaps they are. jim will offer insight into that. speaking later in our program is aaron zelling.

i think it is fair to say that there are exceedingly few people inside or outside of government who have followed the developments of what president obama now calls isil and what other experts call isis, the same radical extremist group that we are talking about. aaron, through his minute, detailed exploration of these groups, brings extraordinary value added to these groups and what is going on in iraq and syria. joining us from orly airport in paris is michael knights. he is, as this audience knows,

one of the finest observers of political-military issues in iraq, has been a voice of incisive and insightful analysis on this situation going back many, many years. i am delighted that he can join us. i think because he is under some technical constraints, that we are going to begin our program with mike, then turned to jim, and then to aaron. so, mike. if we could just address that noise. mike, the floor is yours. >> thanks very much. i have certainly transmitted from worse place than this. i should be with you for the hour. i think you have a graphic that you're going to put up.

[no audio] thanks very much. background noise gone. if you look at this graphic -- and i apologize. >> one second. one second. >> just tell me when. >> i don't -- go ahead.

>> testing. in can you hear me ok now? i will continue to speak. the map that you see in front of you gives some basic areas of control. the green area you can see is the unoccupiable kurdish areas. in the large region in grey is an the area that has collapsed. it may be isis in control, it may be local militants, it may be government forces. the lines on this map show a red line or an orange line, which was the forward edge of control just before the june crisis. now you see a light blue line, which is the current forward position. it demonstrates how they have

moved forward along the entire disputed line. where you see the loss of control end and, you see a thin corridor from samarra, where hopefully the tide will be stemmed, in the bottom of the map, the major logistical base for the destroyed units. as can be seen from this -- i will point out two things about the way the battlefield is evolving. first looking at strategic geometry. if you look at it, isis and mosul have great strategic depth in terms of the federal forces

would have to travel, tremendous strategic depth, 350 kilometers of contested terrain. but isis' west/east strategic depth to the east is narrow. the key things they want to hold onto is within very close striking distance of kurdish forces. this is how important it is to get the kurdish forces involved in the fight. the government has to come to the kurds with solutions on oil authority issues. baghdad has to make some compromises. we can all argue about the fine points later. for now, there is a bigger issue to deal with.

the kurds are already fighting at a number of points on the map. likewise, where the kurds moved forward to take control of these disputed areas, the iraqi army buffer between them and isis is now gone. they're taking casualties. you can see martyrdom statements coming up on social media sites. the kurds are in the fight. the kurdish leadership hate radical islamists. they suffered extensively from degradations in the past. they're not willing to have a major isis control center within an hours drive from the economic capital of kurdistan. no successful emerging economy in the world has been able to have a huge al qaeda presence in a city of 1.8 million people and

hours drive a way. you are you kurds. as this will not be perceptible to the kurds. the second brief observation of want to make is we need to pay a lot of attention to the moral dimension of this crisis. by my estimation, a full 60 of the iraqi army combat battalions cannot be accounted for. 60 out of the 243 cannot be accounted for, with all equipment lost. this is a mammoth refitting job to put these units back together and arm them properly for combat. this is an area where the u.s. will become the arsenal of democracy. no one likes the idea of having to refit the iraqi army again after the u.s. taxpayer did it the first time.

this time iraq will be paying. one aspect of this is the refitting role. as important as that, turning around a defeated army and enabling it to fight again, very military with a long tradition a proud tradition. among arab countries, they're one of the best militaries. they have many proud achievements to point to including the feet of the militia in 2008 and their part in the surge the defeated al qaeda in the first place. these points are laid out in great detail. it is one of the most difficult tasks you can imagine. it would not take them in the

u.s. partners at the divisional level and above to insert some wisdom in to their ways the iraqi security can pick themselves up and dust themselves off and get back into the fight to rid taking baby steps. feeding these units so that they can win small successes, wind -- win small, easy battles. the final thing i will say as well is that the provision of u.s. military assistance on the ground is something that we need to think very seriously about, as i'm sure the president is. listen to his remarks, i hope what i'm detecting their is that we play hardball with the iraqi government about coming out with a political deal, about ending all of this sectarian nonsense ethnic bullying of the kurds.

if some of the very disruptive policies of the government can end, i hope we are willing to help out this long-standing ally. if we put u.s. air power into iraq right now, it is not the bullet that will solve everything, but it will have tremendous moral effect. it is a massive boost to them. you don't need to use a lot of it for have -- for to have a tremendous amount of moral impact. and the people who say, how could we be sure the strikes are getting targeted? don't we need people on the ground? we do. we do need a special task force operation on the ground. we do need eyes on the ground. when we turned around the libyan regimes near destruction of

benghazi and the french airstrikes and other airstrikes turn that around, that had enormous effect and there are many instances in iraq where i can imagine a little bit of air power going at very long way. we have already got boots on the ground in iraq. the people on the embassy -- i wish this boots on the ground phrase would leave our lexicon because it just doesn't mean anything. it is an excuse not to do something. we already have boots on the ground. use whatever legal conceit is required to get some u.s. advisers up to the forward headquarters and to get them on the from line. i will say this with a caveat. they could already be there right now. if it is not the case, it is something we should very seriously consider. space for one final comment. it is not hard at this stage to imagine iraq becoming syria.

like falluja, just 35 miles from baghdad international airport. it is not hard to imagine the iraqi government turning to somebody who has a proven track record of protecting their allies and that is the iranians. they have stabilized the regime's defense. it is unfortunate, but when i was in baghdad, in march, what i heard is that the iraqi government feels it needs to use some of the same formula that assad did and maybe some of the same help. so really, this is the time for a desperate lead to the u.s.

government on behalf of the iraqis out there who are willing to fight. the u.s. needs to make a credible gesture at this time. a credible gesture of military support right now. if we are using the withholding of military support to lean on the iraqi government to come up with a political deal, good. i hope there is the baseline determination underneath that to eventually do something to stabilize the situation. it cannot be a cosmetic half measure. there have been too many of them in recent years. we have to commit to the defense of iraq. we cannot leave iraq to isis or the iranians. those are my comments. >> jim, do you want to speak from the podium? >> i will speak from here. >> i put the map back up. >> the map is great.

okay. what i'm going to say is going to parallel much of what you said. thanks for coming here today. but two months ago, it seems like two years ago, when i was diverted from my main job looking at the middle east into ukraine, i wrote something saying that the crimean situation was the biggest challenge to the united states since 9/11, if not since the and of the cold war. i have changed my opinion. what is happening right now in iraq is the biggest challenge since 9/11, at least. here is why. back in september, president obama addressed the un's general assembly. he said, in the middle east, there are four critical issues that would require all elements of american power, the euphemism

for military force. securing the oil lines combating international terror standing by our allies and partners, and weapons of mass destruction. other than the last, at least for the moment, they all three of the others are very much in play right now. the largest concentration of al qaeda we have ever seen anywhere is in this combined area of western iraq and on into syria. they're the nastiest of all of them. secondly, we have already seen oil prices spike. iraq is the second-largest exporter of oil in opec. the iea estimates it could go up to 6 million barrels of production per day, two thirds of what saudi arabia on sundays produces. this is not a recipe for

stability. in all kinds of ways i will not get into, if there is instability in iraq, particularly if we have no government worthy of the name in baghdad, you will month have a -- you will not have a whole lot of development in the oil sector anywhere, except perhaps in kurdistan. our interests are at stake. the president realizes that. let's try to take a look at the fact that he is being briefed on. i will keep it short and i will keep it to what general casey used to call the major muscle movements. speed is of the essence. a lot of the things that i and everybody in this audience could say about iraq are not important at this point. there are only a few things that are really crucially important by the major actors in the next

few days. there are six. most importantly, this isil. we will hear more about what makes them up. they are facing a decision. they have ceased almost all of the sunni arab areas of iraq. the question is, do they carry out their threat and go after baghdad? they certainly can. i know the area to the north and south of baghdad. it still is an area where al qaeda has always had a presence. it is a mixed sunni-shiite area. they have already seized two of the towns this morning in the province to the north and the northeast of baghdad. they could pretty much cut it off. the problem is even if they cannot take the city, known think they can come of the

question is, how do you get fuel, food, water, electricity and all the other things a country, a capital, five or 6 million people needs if they are surrounding you? i'm not speaking theoretically. in 2004, with 130,000 american troops in country, that was the situation we faced some days in baghdad in june, july, august. being hit by the al-qaeda people. it was very tough, even though we had overwhelming air power. they need to make a decision. we will have to see what they're going to do. that is the most important thing. if they do decide to stay in the sunni areas, we will have a classic counterinsurgency. the things mike laid out the need to be done for reconciliation, all true.

american troops are not going to liberate the sunni areas of iraq. that will be kurds, sunnis, shia or nobody. we will provide the logistics, training, and firepower in the months ahead. i certainly would not recommend it. if they are not going to fight their own country then we shouldn't on the ground. because it would be bloody. that's a long-term question, as history goes. if isil is pushing toward baghdad, the president is faced with a very different situation. we have americans right in the middle of this thing. the government, the iraqi army and some of the shia militias are in this mix, if they can hold, maintain the cohesion, use

their vastly superior firepower and extraordinarily large number of superior troops to hold the territory where the families lived, then we won't have to worry about the siege, they will be able to push these people back and keep the roads open. it will be messy, but they can do it. that is a big if, folks. from what we have seen in mosul and elsewhere. if they cannot, if isis decides to surround baghdad and if the authorities are not able to break that siege, i'm sure they are strong enough to avoid being overrun. a city of 6 million people is not going to be overrun by 5000 people, i'm almost sure of that. but, they may not be able to maneuver, use firepower

effectively against people who are very good at this at this time and the may find themselves essentially besieged. if you get through those two decision points, you get to the other four actors. the kurds are sitting on the green lines, the mixed areas. if there is danger anywhere a kurd is living, that is essentially what we have right now they have two other choices. they are on either side of mosul. there on either side of the fault line where isil is. you can exert tremendous

military pressure on isil if they want to. if they see a total mess disintegration, iranian control to the south, they are out. they have talked about this for years, they have opened certain options. that is something to watch. they have decisions based upon these other decisions. the next actor is the iranians. if baghdad is besieged, if some of the cities that are so important to shia islam in the south are under threat, it is very hard to imagine the acting if somebody else does not act. the second to the last actor is the turk.

they're in an awkward position because they have 80 people in mosul seized by the isil people. that puts limits on what they can do. they are still in major actor with a major military capability. they have close ties to the kurds. watch them. the final actor is the united states. the most important. you just should the president. he said he would consult with congress to go over options. he ruled out ground forces. it that means major ground forces. there are already military advisers on the ground. he did not rule out airstrikes but he did not rule it in what he said is, i cannot do anything

militarily without a political process. going back to the first of the six actors, if isil stays in the sunni areas, that is an intelligent, acceptable way to move forward. all they can do is provide aerial firepower for some of these ground forces. unless the ground forces show up for the fight, there is no since -- sense dropping bombs on these people. if we are facing either a siege of baghdad and almost certainly the iranians coming in in a big way, we have to act quick late just quickly. if he is saying he is going to leverage my decision to use force to get the best possible political deal, that is smart politics, smart diplomacy, and more power to him. having spent years and set a rack to get this kind of deal of failed miserably -- inside iraq and get this deal and failed miserably, what he is telling us is that until that happens, the

planes will stand and iaia is moving forward, then other actors are going to shape iraq and the middle east. that is the question that he is facing today. people will say well, you know what are we going to hit with targets? the north vietnamese invaded on the easter offensive. it was exactly like 1975 when they overran the country. then the planes came. the f4 is, the b-52s come you could feel the ground rumble and every fiona me soldier -- vietnamese soldier could feel it. but by bit they held the ground. by the paris peace accords, all but one small town had been

taken back in the country. we have forward observers. nonetheless, it was the use of military power, it was the use of real power, sometimes not knowing exactly where the enemy was that turned the tide. in libya, many times we did not have ground reserves. what we were dealing with was cars of mobile army troops. what we are dealing with our pickup trucks of isis personnel rolling around at 30 miles per hour. there are vulnerable to airstrikes. i will stop there. thank you very much. >> thank you. thanks for coming out and for

everybody watching online. i am going to be talking about isis, islamic state of iraq, and get into who they are. what they've been up to. this did not necessarily come out of nowhere, even though it is sort of being portrayed as if it has. there has been a reemergence of isis, which originally is the group that was in control of. they have changed their name and rebranded over recent years. they started reemerging in april 2013. this is when isis decided to extend its control beyond iraq and into syria. this is also the time when they officially broke away from al qaeda itself. al qaeda in early february 2014 confirmed isis was no longer part of the organization. while the movement and surge did push them back, they were not

completely defeated. there was still at least 300 people that were killed per month in iraq from around 2008 until april 2013. what was important about syria was they were able to get resources and money and fighters back into iraq when operating inside of syria. one of the things we have seen in the past six months or so is that there had been a return of foreign fighters into the iraqi arena. many of these originally designed to syria to fight against the assad regime. isis unplugged them and brought them into the iraq so divide as well. since april 2013, we have seen violence rise 3.5 times more than what we saw on average in the previous four and a half years. in addition, one of the things that helped them out is they had a prison break last july at abu ghraib were at least 500 individuals were released from prison. some of these guys were arrested and detained during the surge. many of these had experiences

which further provided more levels of competency to isis' operation. of course, we saw earlier this year that they were able to take over falluja and parts of ramadi. another aspect of what isis has been doing that we did not say last decade and is one of the reasons why people -- the backlash against them originally was they had a hearts and minds strategy, whether it is providing food, medication religious classes, outreach to tribal figures, as well as allowing people in the safaa movement to repent and join their cause about getting -- without getting killed. therefore, more and more victories have raised the level of prestige for this organization. isis operatives now operate in both syria and iraq and view the border as nothing more than going from one province in their islamic state to another, not going from one nation say to the other. after mosul was liberated, and there are other islamist factions involved in the takeover, when isis takes over

an area, they view it as now under their sovereign control. therefore, every individual within the territory must pledge allegiance to the leader of the group. if you do not go along with the program, you essentially a death wish. this is the backdrop of how they rule. yesterday morning, they released a charter of the city to residents which highlights more prohibitions on actions and things people can potentially do. if you steal, you will get your hand chopped off. you have to perform all five daily prayers on time. drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are forbidden. carrying non-isis flags and/or weapons is illegal. all shrines and graves will be destroyed since isis views them as polytheist. and women must wear the full

body clothing. sunnis within the town, if they worked within the government and institutions, if they repented they would be fine and would not be executed. we also already have a case study of how isis does rule in syria. i am going to highlight some of the ways they have been in charge, in addition to the criminal aspects. it is not just all terror. it is not just all terror. when isis took over a city in syria, they started setting up by putting up a lot of billboards in the city that had themes related to jihad and sharia. other themes related -- they tried to reach out to local notables and tribal figures because they wanted to stay off any potential backlash that could happen in the future, and the same way we saw last decade in iraq when there was an uprising against isis in the mid-2000's and what most people do not realize is that isis'

operations are highly sophisticated and they do have a bureaucracy themselves, too. i will go through how they have been governing these areas in syria. in terms of the law and order side, they have sharia courts. this is where they can throw down their rulings related to somebody getting their hand chopped off for thievery are people getting executions for apotheosizing. we have seen a number of individuals getting crucified, which i'm pretty sure not many people have seen in the modern era. they have a police service that goes around. they have a consumer protection authority which looks at the different markets and places where you can get food in local places in syria and decides whether a food product is edible or not, essentially, in the same way that the fda would do something. they also have a vigilante aspect of their law and order side where they