>> the only thing i'd add are two things. one related to offense and one related to defense. i think if you're going to get ahead of isil we have to over time shrink the safe haven inside iraq. that's something i mow the president and the secretary of state have spoken to in talking to our foreign partners. absent that, to ability to bring additional western potential operatives into iraq or syria, into that safe haven and potentially train, equip, and deploy them back out to europe and the united states will remain a threat. the more defensive pasta piece of business and i think we're making good progress on is aggressive information sharing with all foreign partners who face a similar problem. this is an issue we've been engaged with with them. many partners face this problem

more acutely than we do in terms of their citizens having an easier route and path to travel to syria and iraq. they sare the same sense of threat. so the information that we're able to share about individuals bhoove traveled to syria or iraq can be used to potentially add to our listing and screening systems and give us one -- a significant leg up in our effort to disrupt travel when the individuals seek to leave syria and iraq. that's not a fail safe. it's by no means the only pillar of a defensive effort. did sense of shared threat is so widely shared at all levels in the governments that we typically work with in europe and it's making that level of interchange more robust than it

ften is. >> have somebody to visit the issue of information sharing. either in an open session or closed session. dr. coburn. >> thank you. i hope the media actually listened to what you had to say, nick. a very co gent, open assessment of where we are. not on the basis to scare people but on the basis to inform them of where we really are. i think the other thing i would comment on is i'm really happy to see the f.b.i. be aggressive on detern ends, because for so long we thought we could build a higher and higher wall that people are catalog to climb over. they're going to climb over ever wall in cyber that we have. we have to have both efforts. we have to have the wall but we also have to have the pros cue

torle deterrence that it's going to be painful. i'm very thankful for that ttitude coming from the f.b.i. general foorl, has ina produced any product examining the vullnerblets in isis student exchange and the visa program and whether it poses a threat to national security? >> yes, sir, we have. pieces published several to support the student visa program and the risk that's -- that comes from that particular program working with ice and with cvp. and are those public or are those classified? >> i believe they're classified, senator, but i will check. >> i'll ask more questionsant

them in the closed hearing. it's reported that millions of people living here on visa overstays, goa has found that dhs is struggling to track this population. we understand that. has ina prepared any assessment of threat from the population of these overstays? do you have anything that you've done on that? >> we have, sir, we've helped ice to prioritize its focus on the visa overstays from a threat perspective and certainly can share that with you in a closed session. >> all right. from the -- my staff and cpp has been very cooperative, by the way. when we review the documents, what we see today is approximately 700 miles of our southern border that are not secure. that's looking at the document that you all give us. can you prepare a current assessment of the coverage on

the border and the threat to national security posed by adversaries that potentially might transcend that border? >> sir, if i nabbed your question, you're asking can we or have we? >> i'm asking you can you, given the basis 06 where we stand? >> absolutely. i would also add, sir, that the secretary's directed a comprehensive southern border security strategy, which will have an intelligence annex to it that will address what you've just described, the risks of the border and how we can better focus our efforts at securing those gaps that we identify are existing. >> do you have a timeline on that? >> he just approved it. at least the concept. and we're beginning to put meat on the bone, so i can't give you the exact date, but i'll

certainly have the staff check and get back to you. >> all right. thank you. mr. anderson, does the f.b.i. monitor cyber attacks against the federal government? >> yes, sir, we work to not only monitor cyber teches ksh attacks around the world but also the private sector. >> can you tell me which departments, major departments of the federal government that haven't been hacked?

>> i don't know if i could tell you that off the top of my head. i would probably have to go back and look. i think i agree with our current director, that if they haven't been hacked, i don't know if they've been hacked or we haven't realized. >> they've all been hacked. >> yeah. >> if you would, would you go back and give us a list of what your records show what is -- you can do that either in the secured setting or in an open session. i'd like to see what you all see on that. i mentioned that deterrents -- i'm really pleased with that, because i think you have to have both sides of the sword working. the rest of my questions, i think, mr. chairman, are for classified setting, so i will wait and ask those of nick and suzanne. >> ok. >>ened others in the classified setting. >> thank you. johnson, senator

cain, senator portman. senator johnson, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to associate myself with senator coleman's comments about the need for us to face this reality. the need the american people need to be informed. it's not about scaring people. it's about facing reality. general taylor, we started the hearing asking are we safer. i want to break that question down into two parts. one is, do we have greater defensive capeability to keep us safe? but then has the threat grown? i just want your assessment of both of those. what is your assessment over the last 13 years in terms of our defensive capabilities and what is hampering our efforts and really your assessment of the growing threat? >> thank you, senator. as i mentioned, i was state department coordinator counterterrorism on 9/11 and was

party to our efforts then and have watched the government change its approach to this. and indeed i think our capacity to share information to work together is as good as it's ever been in the history of our country. we work every day with the f.b.i., with the nttc in gathering and sharing data. so in that sense, i think our capacity is much more effective than it was 13 years ago. there's always room for improvement and change, but i think the leadership of the c.t. community of our government understands that if we don't cooperate, bad things will hoop. i think the nashe of the threat is, i think -- nature of the threat, i think nick probably characterized it best, and 9/11, 2001, we were focused on al qaeda and afghanistan and pakistan. today al qaeda, al qaeda adhere

ends and other jihaddists are essentially global. they're operating in north africa, in the mideast, they're operating in south asian. much more diverse. nonetheless, they still see us as the enemy and therefore, a threat to the united states and our operations around the world. >> sir, i believe the threat's growing. i think it's more grave. ou had mentioned the effect of earned snowden's disclosures. has that degraded our ability to protect ourselves? has that eroded our intelligence gathering capabilities? >> in a word, yes. i could talk in a closed session about what would lead me to that conclusion, but i think the collection environment we're in, and we rely on collection to try to get ahead of terrorist ploths, it's inarguable that

collection environment is more challenging today than it was if we had not been dealing with those disclosures. >> in the foreign relations committee we had mcgerk and i asked him, what threat does isis directly pose to the united states. he talked about the 30 to 50 suicide bombers funneling into iraq that weekend. a german set himself off in baghdad. we've seen the first american suicide bomber. i am concerned, the talk coming out of this administration that we may wants -- this may take three years. first of all, do you believe isis is something that can be contained or managed? versus destroyed. >> i think of this in phases. i think in the near term mrks the immediate term, you can take steps to degrade and disrupt their ability to carry out attacks, but to prevent yourself from having to deal with that in perpetuity, you have to go

beyond that and look to destroy or defeat the organization. and that's what the administration of the president and the secretary of state have talked about over a longer period of time. that objective is not as easy to put a specific time horizontal to. >> i understand. but i'm concerned -- it's like having a hornet's nest in your backyard. you identify the threat. you want to get rid of it as quickly as possible. you don't want to poke it with a stick for three years. what i want to see is a clearly articulated goal of destroying isis as quickly as possible so we can maintain our defenses against the other threats that are metastasizing around the world. do you agree with that assessment? >> i agree with the goal. talking about the phasing is simply that in order to build the intelligence basis necessary to attack and pull apart and organization takes time. >> i understand. but while you're doing that, you try to put great pressure on the organization so that it can't punch you in the process while you're going through that longer

process. >> i think one thing we have to guard against is fighting the last war. only concentrating on past threats. to what extent is the intelligence community using our imagination in terms of looking at what other possibilities might be out there? >> we certainly are devoting time and attention-to-that. again, pressures of the day often lead you to focus on what is the wolf closest to the door, and yet we also challenge our analysts and intelligence community partners to look around the corner and see not only where the next groups might come from where the next theaters of concern might be, but also what tactics and techniques and opportunities for innovation might exist in the terrorism community as well. that's harder and you're not often relying on much intelligence in that situation. you're often, as you said, using your imagination. but it's important work and it helps us over time to target our collection, to try to get ahead of those particular threats.

cyber is one of those areas where we have not seen terrorists necessarily develop great capeability to date but they certainly understand the economic impact that intense in the cyber world causes. we assess over time that is a capeability terrorists will get. >> i want to slower that in a other briefing a little bit. you talked about criminal infrastructure. you tacked about what is our physical and cyber threats to that i want to talk about something i've been briefed on, the threat of e.m.p. both in terms of the nuclear blast, which is always what i knew existed out there and hoping nobody has the capeability or would be stupid enough to do it. but now also aware of the fact that a massive solar flair represents a real threat. is that something you're aware of? is that something we're looking at to harden our electrical grid

against? >> absolutely, senator. and-l and thank you for the question. it is certainly something that we have been focused on and working with our colleagues in the electric sector to find ways to address. i was recently in the u.k. at an international conference energy spra structure security summit where e.m.p.s was a clear focus on those discussions. this is very much on our radar screen and working to address that. >> we'll cover more on that later. just in terms of -- for mr. anderson, the attack at the wecalf pg & e substation, do have anymore information we can share in open session, such as have we tracked down the perpetrators or come up with theories of what that was about? >> we're heavily engaged in that, senator. it would be better to describe it in closed session.

>> ok. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the witnesses. ms. taylor or mr. rasmussen, haven't there been recent reports on twitter and facebook urge sages that would in23il8 tration into the united states across our southwestern border? >> yes, sir. there have been twitter, social media exchanges among isil adhere ends across the globe speak about that as a possibility. >> would you view it as a threat? >> certainly any infiltration across our border would be a threat, but in the courts course of our border security -- are you satisfied that we have sufficient border security to prevent that? >> sir, i'm satisfied that we're

trying to build a border security capeability that would -- zphr are you satisfied that we now have the capeability to prevent ha? >> i'm satisfied that we have the -- the intelligence and the capeability at our border that would prevent that activity. > it's interesting, because an american reporter named james o'keefe addressed as osama bin laden walked across the border of the rio grande river undetected. does something like that concern you? >> actually, sir, he was not undetected. he was known to the border security agencies who -- >> then why didn't they stop him when he came across. >> sir, i can't answer that question. >> no, you can't answer it because they weren't there to stop him. that's a matter of being on the record. the fact is that there are

thousands of people who are coming across our border who are undetected, who are not identified, and for you to sit there and tell me that we have the capeability or now have the proper protections of our southwestern border, particularly in light of the urgings over facebook and twitter for people to come across our southwestern border, is of great concern to the citizens of my state. i'd like to hear your response to that. >> sir, the security of the southwest border is of great concern to the department and certainly understand the concern to the citizens of your state. i didn't -- if i gave you the impression that i thought the border security was what it needed to be to protect against all the risks coming across the state, that's not what i intended to say. >> could you give us -- to the

committee, for the record, what is required to achieve 90% effective control of the border and prevent this threat from materializing? because i don't think there's any doubt, i don't see when you look at isis and the growth and the influence of isis that it would be logical, as they are saying on facebook and twitter, to come across our southwest border, because they can get across, and the flow of drugs across our southwest border has not been decreased by any significant measure. would you agree to that? >> the flow of drugs continues to be significant, yes, sir. >> well, those of us who strongly support a comprehensive immigration reform are deeply disappointed in our lack of

devotion of assets and funds and capabilities to secure our southwestern border. which has then created a credibility problem in our states and across this country that we can guarantee people if we enacted comprehensive immigration reform that there would not be another flow of refugees. and i ask -- or illegal immigration into this country. now we have this non or -- phenomenon or i guess occurrence of thousands of young children showing up at our border. not trying to sneak across, but just showing up at our border. it's tailed off some, but it's still by the thousands. and isn't this diverting the assets and the capeabilities of our border patrol by having to

handle this incredible influx of children from diverting them from other duties like trying to interdict drug smugglers and others? ened isn't it true, could i say to you, and i -- it's really astonishing to me how our friends on the left and those who are pro -- "pro immigration" ignore the fact that the brew taltiss that are inflicted upon these young people, particularly young women as they are brought across by these coyotes is absolutely an horent and unspeak building. would you agree with that? >> absolutely, smert, pilled agree with it. and to your earlier question, we assess that the -- not only assess, we believe border patrol has done an absolutely remarkable job in handling the

u.a.c. crisis, and -- >> but they have been diverted, right? >> it's been a priority, given the number of people at our border, to focus on that issue and certainly with resources as they are, resources are shifted to priorities. >> so it's always been a national security issue, but i believe that in light of the growth of isis and the aggressiveness of isis and the information that they've been able to recruit in the united states of america, we know that because of americans have been killed over there, that it seems to me it dramaticcally heightens our requirement to have a secure southern and northern border. would you agree with that? >> absolutely agree with it, senator. >> thank you. and finally, mr. has mussen, it's entertaining to me that it's like, it all just happened with isis, another wolf at the

door. we've known about isis for years. people like me and lindsey graham and others have warned known about it and talked about it and warned about it while we've really done nothing to stem the tide of isis and the chaos that we now see per vading iraq and seer yafment some of us are hopeful that the president of the united states will finally recognize that threat and outline to the american people some actions that need to be taken. but many of us predicted this. many of us saw it coming. and it comes as no surprise. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> you're welcome and thank you as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. taylor and mr. rasmussen, i wanted to talk a little bit more about the estimated more than 100 u.s. persons who have left to join the fight in syria. hi think that's sort of how it was phrased.

i just want to get a sense of, is this an estimate or do we have a sense of actually who this 100-plus people are, names, where they're from, etc.? how much detail do we have? are we basically just estimating that it's about 100? >> i'll take a stab at that, senator. that number is actually meant to capture a number of categories of individuals. individuals who have shown an intent to travel and that travel has not happened. individuals who have traveled, individuals who have traveled and come back, individuals who have traveled and perhaps been killed in the fighting over there, so that number is scomma all encompassing. it does not necessarily reflect an estimate of who is exactly there today. there's more we can say in the closed session, but i think we can row assure you that we have -- there's some significant detail behind that broad number. >> great. i'm going to try to ask a couple more questions on this topic in

open session. we'll see how far we can get. with regard to that number, is there differentiation, specific differentiation between those who are actually joining isil and those, for example -- i traveled to turkey now over a year ago, but there were certainly american citizens of syrian dez sent who were there trying to -- descent who were trying to provide humanitarian relief in the fight or doing what they could to help the moderate rebels, the moderate elements, try to parp in that -- participate in battle there. are we differentiating in that when we talk about the rough numbers? >> yes, we are. in some cases we know of individuals who indicate intent or have traveled to syria who go over not necessarily knowing who they will affiliate with when they get there.

they simply look to join the fight from an extremist or jihadist perspective and whether they end up affiliating plays out over time and we may or may not have intelligence on that. but the number of americans who travel to syria can capture a number of different varieties there. >> but you believe the over 100 are engaged in the balt with the isil extremists? >> with extremist elements. >> i understand. >> you know there are a number of organizations over there. >> and i'm getting there, too. so before i get to that second point, do we have a sense that our in particular, our european allies have as granuelar information on their citizens who have traveled to syria as we do on ours? >> i think it's not a constant picture across the whole of europe. i think in some cases with some

of our partners with whom we work the most closely, the answer's absolutely yes. they have a great -- a very detailed understanding of individuals. in fact, they've done a great deal of work talking to, in many case, individuals who have come back from syria in order to try and understand the appeal and the draw, but also the experience those individuals had and how they may play -- what contributions to the threat picture back in their homes that they may present. and i know that a significant amount of law enforcement effort in the the united kippingdom, for example, is devoted to just that effort. i wouldn't argue that this is constant across the whole of europe. particularly in the southern and eastern european parts of europe, their exapeblilts are not as well developed or resourced to handle a large national security challenge like this in the way that some of the -- our more traditional partners are. as i pointed out in my

statement, there's a bit of a good news statement in that the ability to lock arms with us and -- i mean, we've seen pretty constantly across the board. > thank you. give me -- he gave me a cautionary note. do you have a good feeling for what is appropriate to say in open setting and what is more appropriate to say in a closed setting. again, if you ask questions that you think maybe should be deferred to the next part of our hearing, please do that. go ahead. >> so do we have a sense of how engaged nationals are with al qaeda globally? and obviously, there's a much greater fragmentation and -- but even in particular, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. do we have that same sort of grain uelar information there?

>> again, i think it depends on when al qaeda affiliate group you're talking about. we can talk about specific individuals in specific organizations in another known session. >> can you describe in open session for the committee that what we know, what our intelligence has said about the relationship between isil and al qaeda, is it rival, sit cooperative? are they rooting each other on? i mean, what do we know at this point about their relationship? >> well, one of the things that i think has been a development that we've spent a great deal of time trying to understand and assess is the degree of conflict intention between isil and core al qaeda leadership, as i said, rezz comment the fattah. i think what you can argue you are now seeing is in a sense a contest or a competition for

primea si in that overall to 3-d jihad. with isil increasingly posturing itself as the legitimate follow-on or heir to the osama bin laden vision, and what that is also causing is intellectual ferment in that jihaddist community around the world. we see that as they seek to decide for themselves, do we main tain fidelity to our al qaeda core or do we join with isil. i think one thing we can open is success breeds success. so when isil has had success on the battle needle taking over large swaths of territory in iraq, that has served as a draw not only to foreign fighters who might not only want to choose where they want to bring their capabilities but also individuals who may want to be affiliated with other al qaeda groups who decide i'd like to go

where the jihad is the hottest and where my ability to impact global jihad can be felt most acutely. and there's no doubt that there's al qaeda affiliated individuals, that draw is out there. it's something that will play out over time whether isil would upplant al qaeda core over overall leadership of jihad. > thank you. thank you, senator. senator portman, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the testimony today and the opportunity to ask you follow-up questions in another session. and there's so much to go over. i'm going to talk a little about what you said today and what some of my colleagues have asked about in terms of iraq and isil

and how we got in this situation that we're in. because i think it's important not only to what we do now in iraq but also to look to afghanistan and what we are doing or not doing there to ensure that we don't have a similar situation. with regard to afghanistan, how do you assess the security forces there, the afghan security forces as compared to the iraqi security forces, mr. rasmussen? come back to specifically to their capeability to conduct criticism, operations against the taliban and al qaeda partners. >> i believe we've made a substantial amount of progress in bringing the afghan national security force up to the level where they can carry out kris

operations against known terrorist targets inside afghanistan. what will be -- what we will not know until we see over time is whether the afghan government is able to sustain that capeability , invest in resource and sustain that capeability over time so that they're able to do this as they encounter threats. >> do you think they have greater came bliltsd than the iraqi security forces, assuming that as was the case over the last few years, there is no u.s. support? >> i'm reluctant to put it in comparative terms because i'm not sure i have the right expertise or knowledge to do that. i'd be happy to get you the -- >> i'd appreciate that. here's my feeling from your reports which are made public and other assessments is that in fact, the iraqi security forces were further along at that time time at which we chose to pull out and if we decide to do the same thing in afghanistan and

the president has said he plans to have no more troops in afghanistan by the end of 2016, that we may have a similar and i would say worse situation, given the assessment of this their capeability to be able to have .n effective counterterrorism we need your help in learning lessons from iraq and hopefully taking those lessons to afghanistan. there's been a lot of attention recently to president obama's comments last january about regional terrorist groups being like k.v. teams in relation to isil seizing of fallujah. i'm sure you followed that back and forth. and, mr. taylor, general taylor and mr. rasmussen, i'm not going to ask you if you shared that assessment at the time, because the president indicated that that was an assessment that he had. but i will say, given all the

bloodshed and resources suspended in the attempts to take fallujah in 2004, and i was privileged to go there at one point in 2004, 2005 time period. and those years of toil by our marines and soldiers in an bar, they followed to make it a peaceful place, but those comments are particularly concerning. as you all know, we took serious losses in one six-month period, ohio's unit lost 46 marines. 22 were killed from one rifle company in columbus. so obviously, this struggle affects a lot of our communities, including back home in ohio. mr. rasmussen, in 2013, did the intelligence community identify that al qaeda in syria has expressed interest in external operations? >> yes. and we can talk about that more in -- >> ok. >> -- in closed session, but

yes. >> in 2013 did they determine that it existed in the form of fighters to and from iraq? >> absolutely. do you assess that the iraqi security forces who earlier this year have been operating without u.s. troops by their side for two years took any successful actions to arrest control of fallujah from isil after they seized it in january of 2014? >> i'd like to get an answer for the record from you on that, because i'm certainly aware of iraqi security force counter terrorist actions. >> let me ask you a more general question. were they successful in wresting control back? >> knots as you describe, as i understand it. >> i just think again, we should learn some lessons from this and you assessed that over the last two years that isil exploited

terrorist operations or pressure from the iraqis in iraq to escalate their operations? >> certainly true that they have escalated their operations and they've taken advantage of the lack of a real border between iraq and syria, which has allowed them to move resources back and forth to escape counter terrorism pressure whether it comes from the iraqi security forces or other elements inside syria we're fighting. >> well, i think your answers to these questions are helpful. in terms of us understanding what we should be doing in iraq but also again looking forward to afghanistan, being sure that we are prepared to take the steps to avoid a repeat of this. let me change topics, if i could. this has to do with the ebola crisis. general taylor, i'm interested to hear what work your office is doing to monitor the spread of ebola in africa. we now have over the 2,300

people who have died. world health organization tells us today they expect 20,000 people to die relatively soon. there are other groups who have much higher estimates. as you know, we had another u.s. citizen infected this week. if you could tell me how are you monitoring this situation in africa and what are y'all doing? >> sir, i.n.a., my office works with the office of health affairs, who is leading the effort of the department in an interagency response to the bola virus, and it's consequences to the u.s. as well as in the africa region. their daily interagency meetings on that issue and trying to get aid to those countries to stem the spread of the virus. >> you feel we have an effective interagency and intergovernmental coordination? >> i think we have an effective

inter's and united states response but it's a global swration and the nations in the region are less capable in certain cases of handling the kind of infection that they're seeing, so it will require a global effort to stem this particular issue. >> general taylor, have you -- i understand health affairs is taking the lead here but have you had the opportunity to look at what the u.s. government did in relationship to the malaria, the malaria initiative, the intergovernmental and in that case, the interagency process that we used? >> i have not personally looked at it. i'm only aware of the efforts. my most recent experience has been with h. 1 n. 1, which i think we had an effective fight against. >> i think we're not being as aggressive as we could be. i would hope the agency would look at what we have done in the ast and where we've been

relatively successful not just with foreign aids but specific steps we've taken on the malaria initiative. one final question. do you have any insights on how you see the spread of ebola developing and what we should be doing here in this country? i noticed that you talked about the national preparedness month, and one of my concerns is based on some recent reports, we're not prepared. we have unfortunately a situation where if a pandemic were to occur that there are some short falls including expireations on some of the medical response will be necessary. do you have thoughts about that? >> sir, i would prefer to respond in a more wholistic way in consultation with my colleagues, so if i could take that -- >> we appreciate you getting back to the committee.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thanks for those questions. senator, after you've spoken and asked questions, i'm going to ask one last -- give mr. anderson an opportunity. i haven't picked on you enough. just give you one opportunity that if you want to make some point, you'll have that opportunity in closed session. but for now, senator? >> i want to thank you for holding this important hearing. i want to thank our witnesses for what they do to keep the country safe. secretary taylor, i wanted to follow up on some of the questions that senator baldwin had asked. i would ask all of you to give me some insight on a comment that i heard from our f.b.i. director. i think it's important that the american people understand what we're dealing with in terms of not only americans but westerners who have potentially traveled to syria or have interest in traveling to syria and joining with one of these

extremist groups, including isil . so you had testified that more than 100 u.s. persons, you're tracking, and you've identified those who have intended to go, those who have gone and some of whom who have actually been engaged and killed in this conflict. i know that the f.b.i. director comey said in august, when i give you the number of 100 americans, i can't tell you with high confidence that it's a hundred or 200, that it's 100 or 500 or that it's 100 or 1,000 more because it's so hard to track. here's something i think people need to know, and that is, do we really know and how many of these do we really have track of and how many don't we have track of? >> senator, i would share the director comey's comments in terms of we don't know what we

don't know. and i think those -- the context in which he was making those comments, i think we have very high confidence on the number that we do know and we have systems that help us identify more day in and day out. so i could sit here today and give you the number of over 100 and tomorrow it may be based upon our intelligence investigation with the f.b.i., we'd have more identities that we didn't know about before. >> but is the reality that while we have confidence in the 100, that we really don't know how many more may be part of this? >> i think that's a fair statement. >> i assume that's why director comey, whom i certainly have a lot of respect for, made that 125eu789 when he was specifically asked about how confident we are in the number of 100. >> el with, given home grown violent extremism, given the

nature of how people radicalize, given the nature of the data in the -- on the internet, that it's very difficult to say with any degree of certainty that we wanting hat could be to join this particular effort. >> so we know that it may be more than the 100 that we're talking about. with respect to the 100 that we do know, do we have track of all of them? >> yes, ma'am. i would defer to my colleagues at the f.b.i. who lead the joint task force looking at this issue for our government. >> senator, if i could address that . so i agree with general taylor wholeheartedly. i can tell you any individual and they definitely fit into the three categories in a mr. rasmussen talked about, any individual that we can predicate an investigation on, it's on an individual, whether they're broader in the united states, we

also dead tate an immense amount of resources to those that we know about. we'll get in more detail on that in the next session. >> of the 100 that we know about, what authorities do we have to row-r revoke their passports? in other words, you're a united states citizen. you're entitled to certain rights. so what can we do to make sure that they can't get in the community if we believe that they've joined, for example, an extremist group like isil who has brutally and horrifically murdered two american journalists? >> senator, that is a -- it's a very complicated question in terms of taking away an american's passport. there are judicial means to do that. i'm not an expert in that, but we can get you the answer of what are the authorities that would allow for that to happen.

>> well, i think that's really important, because we need to understand. we certainly don't want a situation where you all talk to someone, you don't have authority to detain them, we're in a position where they have to appear before a judicial authority, but in the interim, they're not detained and they have open access in america. so i would like a follow-up to know what those processes are, what tools you have at your hands when there is obviously evidence that an american is involved with a group like isil so that we can understand whether those authorities are sufficient. so i would appreciate a follow-up on that. i also wanted to ask what i understand from hearing your testimony today is that you said that the threat of isil is really regionly focused, meaning the region of where they're operating in iraq and syria and the surrounding regions. what kind of access do they have

o financing? >> that's been one of our great concerns is isil has surblingd in iraq is they've had the ability to draw on a wider array of sources for financing, including kidnap for ransom, simply occupying and taking over federal reserve holdings -- >> i saw an estimate of their making at least $ million a day. is that a fair estimate? >> that's a fair estimate. >> ok. and as i understand, they have safe havens in syria, correct? >> yeah. >> and they're obviously taking over more territory in iraq, correct? that is their design and one of the reasons -- concerns we have in regard to what's happening in iraq right now? >> that is their ambition in iraq. in last weeks, military action has stemmed the ability of isil to gain more territory. >> but they have some territory

right now, you would agree with me? >> yes. >> they have territory in syria, they have territory in iraq. >> yes. >> they have the means to make money. and when we think about this threat, the task force issue, it's not just about americans. there's about 2,000 westerners, but i've also seen estimates of 7,500 potential foreign fighters from all different countries that have joined this conflict starting in syria. i don't know how many of those have joined isil but this makes me go on to think about americans. how good -- i know you talked about a good news story about more communication between those other countries with regard to these individuals who have joined this extremist -- these extremist groups, but we also have a visa waiver program with countries like the united kingdom and france, so how good is our intelligence and ability to attract -- to track those

individuals and -- we talked about the 100, so we're worried about our people, but thinking about the individuals that don't need a visa to come travel to the united states of america and as i understand it, there's actually thousands, the numbers that the united kingdom, great britain is facing is even greater than the united states. can you give us an assessment of how good a track we have on them and what ability we have to stop them from coming to the united states or to know exactly where they are so that we don't face a situation where someone is -- we -- you know, the james foley video, that individual who committed that barbaric murder, he was clearly from great britain. you could tell from his accent. so an individual like that coming to the united states and then participating in an action here, so can you give us a little more insight on that?

because i think it's important for people to understand. >> yes, ma'am. i would defer to nick to talk about the intelligence cooperation that we have, which is significant with our european partners, and daily we exchange information. more importantly, visa waiver does not mean people come to this country without screening. every passenger coming to the united states from outside the united states is screened rough our terror screening system, and if this there is derogatory data, they're not allowed to come to the united states. so -- zphr but that assumes we have the data, correct? >> well, that assumes we have the data and that's what intelligence collaboration and cooperation is all about is making sure that with our partners in europe and other places, that we are getting that data and getting it in -- so -- >> -- a consistent fashion. >> i think this is an important

issue as well, is knowing and tracking who these individuals are, who if we don't have the data, we may just allow them in our country without being able to stop them from coming. my time is up, but i just want to say one thing that concerns me. what concerns me is, i know we've talked today about wleaving that really the focus on the threat -- bleefing that really the focus on rifles is a regional threat but here we have a sophisticated terrorist organization this our own secretary of state has said is beyond anything we've seen and, in fact, we have a situation where secretary dempsey described this group as an imminent threat and we have combined with, they have financial neens means to make money. they have territory and safe havens. we know that in january their leader basically threatened the united states of america. we have seen through their

actions with the brutal murders of these two journalists that obviously the threat that they face, the type of barbaric actions they're willing to take against americans, and then we know that if these people who joined this, if we're not quite sure how many there are and could return to the u.s., i'm concerned that it's an understatement to say that this is a regional threat in terms of what it might present to us in our homeland. >> mr. chairman, can i respond to this one? >> yes, please. >> the word regional in my remarks in the beginning, i by no means didn't mean -- mean to imply not directed at the united states. currently isil has the capeability to threaten u.s. persons and interests not just in iraq proper but in surrounding states as well. we're certainly -- >> what about here? >> as i said, if allowed over time to utilize the safe havens they currently are enjoying --

>> but right now you don't think they have that capacity? >> right now we assess that they do not have active ongoing plots aimed at the u.s. homeland. >> that's a different question than if they have the capacity. we don't know of any 2if6 ongoing threats, plots but -- >> we do not assess that they have the capeability to mount an effective large scale plot inside the united states. >> large scale, correct? >> another piece of this that you can't necessarily account for is the individuals we talked about under the category of home grown violent extremists who may self-identify in acting in sympathy with or in support of isil, perhaps not having any leadership of isil, but in the aftermath of a potential attack even here in the homeland might self-affiliate and describe -- i don't mean by any means to minimize the threat to isil. that's not my sbefpblet i was trying to describe and in a sense concentric rings what were the levels of concern that we

have at present versus what we see developing more overtime. >> thank you. >> what you described with the foreign fighters is what -- >> thank you. >> i'd just add one point. you have to take-n into fact comportation of members of isil to come across our southern border. it's out there. it's in the social media. i know you all are looking at that but the fact is that's pretty scary. you talk about what we don't know. we don't know the people who are coming across our border, what their threat is to us. we don't know. >> mr. snarb anderson, we give tu opportunity to have a closing thought, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i could, i'd just make a closing remark and turn back to cyber for a second. the one thing that i think the committee needs to know and they probably do is when it comes to cyber, i've never seen more

cooperation in my entire law enforcement career than i have in the last year or so. the people at this table, d.h.s., secret service, a large variety of our intelligence partners, we all get it. we get that this is something that is going to go through from now to the next several years in our government. this is a deep concern of ours. to work together and work towards a fix. we talked about a little while ago about the number of federal departments within our government that possibly could be hacked or if they weren't hacked -- they were hacked and they just didn't know about it. i think one of the things we're working on and i know the legislature is also, to figure out how we share real-time information with our private sector partners i think is absolutely imperative, mr. chairman, and i think my colleagues would echo that. one of the main reasons is everyone knows our classified and sensitive technologies are developed, designed, and built out in the private sector way before they're ever classified.

our adversaries know this. whether it's counterintelligence, counteres knowledge, counterterrorism. i've had the pleasure over the years to testify as the assistant director of counterer intelligence to chairman feinstein. also dr. coburn many times regarding this kind of scare for us. i would tell you that the one thing that i see is the whole government coming together as one on this threat and really orking towards a positive fix. thank you, mr. chairman >> i would add to that, the threat of isis and these other terrorist groups, are they a threat to -- sure, they are, sure, they are. and we have to be eternally vigilant and it's not time to pat ourselves in the back and become complice ent. it's time to be more vigilant. i hope you'll lay out a game plan that would enable us and the armada around the world to destroy this threat.

that's what i'm looking for. hopefully, that's what we'll get. i've also seen -- one last word. i have to go back to underlying root causes. we talked about underlying and root causes. i would say a couple of them. one underlying cause, al qaeda in iraq was underbacked. they were almost done about seven years ago. and the policies of the iraqi government actually helped them get off the matt and back into the game and to be the kind of threat this they are today. my hope is the new government that's been -- that's being stood up in iraq will be part of the solution to help us accomplish what we did seven years ago and do it again this year, this time for good. great to be here with ullings. i appreciate our colleagues being here as well. we move to a secure setting. with that, this portion of the hearing is adjourned.

>> former presidents george bush and clinton were recently in washington, d.c. to launch the leadership scholars program. watch that event tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. tomorrow, bill clinton will join his wife former secretary of state hillary clinton at the 37th and final stake fry in under an ole, iowa.

the event hosted by retiring senator tom harkin. we'll have live coverage tomorrow beginning at 3:30 eastern on c-span. next attorney general eric holder speaking to the his panic national bar association about the need for more minorities in today's legal profession. he also talked about the country's immigration system, announcing grants to train lawyers who represent immigrant children in courts. the association also heard from federal trade commission chair edith ramirez. his is 35 minutes. >> thank you for that generous introduction. i also want to thank the hmba latino commission for inviting me to be here with you this afternoon. 'm delighted to be here today. celebrating the 50th anniversary of the passage of the civil

rights act and honoring the latino lawyers pass past, present, and future, whose struggle and successes represent the vitality and the fruits of the civil rights movement. congratulations to our honorees. you are a credit to the trail blazing team of lawyers about whom professor will be talking after lunch and congratulations for putting on a terrific conference. respectful of those who have brought us to where we are today, inspiring to those who . ek to lead now this is the civil rights movement is not a static event from 50 years ago. it's part of our daily struggle

and responsibility. in the words of one of our late la tina leaders sonia, we have a professional and moral duty to represent the underrepresented in our society, to ensure that justice exists for all both legal and economic justice. >> the agency i had, the federal trade commission for answers into its 100th year. the ftc is a bipartisan agency established at the height of the progressive move met by reformers who believe government should work to ensure a more level playing field in the marketplace. the focus at the ftc is on the consumer. the mission is to protect competition in the marketplace so delivers the best goods at

the best prices and to protect consumers so they can navigate assured thatace, businesses will treat them fairly and honestly. we have a number of tools we use to accomplish this. civil enforcement actions. research. policymaking. education. we readily deploy them all in the service of american as the civil rights movement taught us and continues to teach us, there is no one face of an american and there is no one face of the american consumer. that is why it is crucial that there be different faces among the leadership in washington and around the united states. my own journey from the beach community of san clemente, where i was born and raised, the daughter of immigrants from mexico city, to los angeles, where i practice law, and then to washington, d.c., was largely unexpected.

in fact, i never imagined i would be leaving in d.c., let alone that i would be the chairwoman of the ftc. until 2007, i followed a largely conventional route in a career as a corporate attorney. following law school, i served as a clerk on the ninth circuit, was an associate at a large law firm. and then became partner at another. i did interact with a more diverse california community through volunteer work with a number of community organizations. i did not step off the corporate law track until a former law school classmate with whom i had served on the harvard law review decided to run as a democratic presidential primary. i was given the opportunity to serve as the deputy political director and director of latino outreach in california. it was not an easy decision. i was a partner at a highly regarded law firm doing a job

that i enjoyed and i was good at in my home state. my firm and managing partner were supportive, but a leave of absence to work on the campaign of a candidate who had the time was not the best career move. i am so glad that i said yes. not just because working for then candidate barack obama helped bring me to the ftc and washington, because working on the obama campaign proved to be one of the most rewarding and invaluable experiences i've ever had. during the campaign, and reaching out across california to our various latino community, with their unique believes and dreams, i learned to listen and hear the many voices of america.

i learned to better appreciate them. and it reinforced that the guarantee of civil rights means nothing at of context. how a community speaks, where they live, shop, bank, and work, all this matters when it comes to making sure government and business treat them fairly, honestly, and with respect. in 2009 when president obama nominated me to serve as the commissioner of the federal trade commission and again last year when he elevated me to chair, i said yes. and this time, without hesitation. ready to take all i have learned over the course of my career and apply it at the ftc, the only federal agency with jurisdiction to protect consumers and competition across broad sectors of the american economy. one important action i took as chairwoman was to launch what we call the every community initiative. i wanted the entire agency to

focus on how we can ensure our efforts to protect consumers in every state, city, town, neighborhood. how we protect those consumers who experienced the market differently. who are hit hardest by fraud and other illegal conduct. and who are most challenging to reach. and important aspect of this is taking a hard look at the prevalence and types of fraud experienced in different communities. our economists report that in 2011 alone, 10.8% of u.s. adults, 25 point 6 million people, were victims of fraud. of the use, and estimated 9% were non-latino whites. 13.4 percent were latino. and 17.3% were african-american. we also found that older americans are impacted by

certain fraud, like lottery scams, in greater numbers than other age groups. some scams, like telemarketing fraud and authorized billing schemes, are likely to affect certain communities in larger numbers. some scams target specific populations. we continue to examine how fraud affects our nation's market, including online. we are examining issues regarding debt collection. stopping unfair and harassing debt collectors has long been a priority at the ftc. we received more complaints about this industry than any other. as part of this work, we are focusing on reports of egregious and unlawful debt collection and that spanish-speaking consumers. something we have seen in law enforcement.

one scam defrauded consumers and then followed up trying to collect money for faulty, substandard, or never delivered goods by threatening to report the consumers to immigration authorities. by broadening our understanding of the debt collection experiences of the non-english speaking consumer, we hope to stamp out illegal fraud and develop improved strategies for outreach and education. another area that is a concern to all americans and also are low income and underserved communities is privacy in the area of big data. as i am sure you all know, every time you buy something online, check a sports score on your phone, select or credit card, check into facebook, surf the internet on any device, you leave a trail. a trail that is noted, recorded, and analyzed by data brokers. these companies operate largely

in the dark, collecting our personal information, amassing detailed profiles on each of us. and, largely without our knowledge or consent, selling that data to businesses and other brokers. earlier this year, the ftc released a report titled "data brokers: a call for transparency and accountability." it lays out the extent to which data brokers know you. they know where you live. they know how old your kids are. what you buy. your income. your ethnicity. your health conditions. your hobbies. our report makes several policy recommendations to bring the operations of data brokerage into the light and to give consumers more control over their personal information. one of my concerns and an issue we are beginning to look at is

how businesses are using the information sold to them by data brokers classified by race, income, socioeconomic status, age, health condition, religious affiliation, even political leniency. how will such labels affect our chances of getting a job? the terms of our mortgages. the products we are offered online. the opportunity for misuse is there. these are issues we are examining and will continue to monitor closely. the every community initiative is ongoing. it is my goal to have it in fuse every aspect of work at the ftc. while i am proud of the mission, it is an agency that long before my tenure has paid close attention to a demographic change that has swept over our nation the last several decades. for example, in 2004 hundred then chairman tim, the ftc launched a hispanic law enforcement initiative to deter

and stop fraud targeting latinos and to create an effective consumer education for latino communities. by that time, latinos represented a steadily growing market for advertisers. with total consumer buying power estimated at $580 billion. the same research shows that latinos were also about twice as likely as non-hispanic whites to be victims of consumer fraud. particularly in the area of credit. since 2004, the ftc has brought approximately 70 cases against companies that targeted spanish speakers. our law enforcement action stopped. immigration legal aid, credit

card debt relief. the ftc has targeted companies that have made deceptive claims regarding everything from prepaid telephone calling cards to disease cures to weight loss supplements. when we see fraud like this in the marketplace, we act aggressively. filing complaints in federal court to stop unlawful conflict and obtain judgment. often requesting temporary restraining orders, asset freezes, and other powerful forms of relief. of course, we prefer that consumers avoid fraud in the first place. and to that end, the ftc attempts to protect consumers through education. we have an extensive library of materials on our website in english and spanish. and over the last few years, we have been translating our publications into other

languages as well. but the conversation has to go both ways. our job is not just to provide guidance to consumers. but also to listen to their concerns. one of the main ways that we do that is by receiving consumer complaints from around the country through our website and telephone hotline. we have also engaged in extensive outreach to local communities. in 2010, for example, we begin holding common ground conferences across the country to elicit information from state attorney general offices, local law enforcement, legal service providers, and community-based organizations about what scams they were seeing. these conferences along with our broad outreach to consumer advocates, helps us identify the unfortunate targets and spurred the creation of the new consumer education material. as chairwoman of the ftc, i have an obligation to ensure there

are competition and consumer laws that are as effective in boston as they are in south-central, l.a. we must have an ftc that respects the diverse ways consumers navigate the marketplace across the u.s. 100 years ago, if you had told the progressives who created the ftc that one day it would be led by a woman, they would probably not have believed you. though they might have hope you are right. 50 years ago, if you had told the signers of the civil rights act that one day the ftc would be run by a latina. they might not have believed you, but they would have hoped you were right. 10 years ago, if you had told me

that one day i went leave my law firm job and move across the country and run the ftc, i flat out would not have believed you. today, it is a different story. i am grateful for opportunities that have brought me here. i am going to continue to do my best to serve all consumers and every day that i am privileged to lead the ftc. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. now, i told you earlier we had a special guest. i would like to bring up the hnba president to introduce our honored guest. [applause]

>> thank you very much, maria. good, ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, hnba members and award winners. it is my extreme honor and privilege to welcome you this afternoon. the 36th national president of the hispanic national bar association. the hnba has had a long history of advocacy and being on the forefront of issues that affect hispanics and the latino community. it is fitting as we celebrate our convention, which by all metrics that we used to measure success has been a huge success, i am excited today. in about eight hours, i get to pass on the gavel to cynthia. where is she? [applause]

cynthia becomes the seventh latina in our 42 year history to lead the national bar association. we are excited about her leadership and looking forward to a tremendous year with cynthia at the helm. thank you, cynthia. [applause] but i'm also excited for another reason. as you know, our theme is unidos in washington. our struggle in our progress. indeed, there has been tremendous struggle in the last 50 years as we commemorate the civil rights act. there has been tremendous address. our guest speaker is at the forefront of a lot of the

progress that we see every day. as our top law enforcement officer in the country, attorney general eric holder is the 82nd attorney general of the united states of america. he took the position after being nominated by barack obama on february 3, 2009. as many of you know, the attorney general was scheduled to join us this evening. two to his schedule, he is here now. we are excited to have him. mr. holder, general holder, is a native of new york city, where he attended the public schools, graduated from stuyvesant high school, where he was a regents scholar. he attended columbia university,

where he studied american history. he then went on to columbia law school and graduated in 1976. while in law school, general holder worked at the naacp legal education defense fund and at the department of justice criminal division. upon graduating, he moved here to washington and joined the department of justice as part of the attorney general's honors program. many of you have been following the media. you have studied shelti versus holder and you know what is happening around voting rights. i will not steal the general's thunder, but i wanted to set the table. you have been following what has been happening in ferguson. without further ado, i want you to please rise and join me in

welcoming attorney general eric holder. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. well. [speaking spanish] [laughter] [applause] i was going to give the rest of the speech and spanish, but c-span is here. [laughter] please forgive my english. it is a privilege to welcome the hispanic national our association to our nations capital for your 39th annual convention. it is a great pleasure to be in such distinguished company.

i would like to thank the president, he keeps saying he has eight hours and now seven hours and 56 minutes. cynthia, this sounds like it is going to be a tough job. sounds like a young man eager to pass the baton. i want to thank him and the entire hnba leadership team, along with your convention chair, ricardo, and the hispanic bar association of d.c.. all these organizations and everything you have done to bring us together this week. i would like to congratulate the award recipients being honored for their leadership of the course of this luncheon. and i would like to recognize the law students, attorneys, and judges who make up this remarkable organization and have taken time away from their busy schedules and their full dockets to take part in this important annual convention.

we come together today in a moment of great consequence. with critical challenges stretching before us. six decades after hernandez versus texas extended the guarantee of equal protection to people of all races and backgrounds and half a century since the passage of the civil rights act finally was codified. it was -- there is no question our nation has taken really extraordinary and once unimaginable steps forward. yet, recent headlines remind us that these advances have not put the issue of equal justice to rest. on the contrary. in america's heartland, to our southwest border, the events that have captured the attention and sparked debate over the course of the summer illustrate that the fight for equality, opportunity, and justice is not yet over. these issues have not yet been relegated to the pages of history. although this is a struggle that predates our republic, it poses challenges as contemporary as

any others that we currently face. for over four decades, the hnba has stood at the forefront of national efforts to confront these challenges. by working to increase diversity on the bench and bar. i helping to educate the leaders of tomorrow. by empowering members of america's latino community, and by fostering new opportunities for legal professionals of hispanic heritage and particularly latinas in the law. so we can grow their ranks and make sure their voices are heard. from the chambers of our courts

to the halls of congress. at every level in today's department of justice, this is a personal and professional priority. more than 10 years ago, during service as deputy attorney general, i worked to build a diverse and effective workforce. when i returned in 2009, i significantly expanded this work. it not only improves our ability to draw on the skills of everyone, it also makes the justice department more credible and more effective. in fact, since i understand this convention includes a job fair, i cannot pass up a chance to urge all of the young and aspiring attorneys in this crowd, those of you who are a little older than that, to consider a career in public service. come to the justice department, work for me. [applause] i am serious about that. beyond the institution itself, by colleagues and i are struggling to open the doors to women and men from every race, ethnicity, and walk of life. according to the pew research center, the hispanic top election of the u.s. exceeds 53 million people. it has increased almost sixfold from around the time hnba was founded. it has doubled since the year 2000.

yet statistics show that as the approximately 1.2 million attorneys working in the u.s. today, fewer than 50,000, less than 4%, identify as hispanics. women and people of color have made up and increases percentage of licensed lawyers and law students, the law lacks behind other professions. we need to do everything in our power to ensure that the coming decades witnessed an uptick in the number of people of color, women, people with disabilities, and new immigrants who find productive avenues into the legal field and the american workforce as a whole. and once they have their opportunities to compete for these jobs, we need to close the pay gap, making sure every worker is compensated. all of us, both collectively and as individuals, have more work to do to tear down barriers and combat discrimination.

and to uphold the civil rights every person is entitled to. our comprehensive work to advance equality, we need to look beyond law school campuses and workplaces, we need to build on civil rights enforcement that the justice department has established over the last 5.5 years. we need to keep striving through programs such as president obama's my brother's keeper initiative to address opportunity gaps. we need to summon our collective experience as legal professionals and our shared commitment as a nation to tackle the urgent challenges faced by millions of people every day, from immigrant communities to our military. from our places of worship to our financial markets. from our voting booths.

among the most pressing of our challenges is the problem of unaccompanied young children traveling to the u.s. in entering this country. i know this is an issue which we are all familiar with and which has promote intense discussion throughout the summer. both within and beyond the u.s. i traveled to mexico city to hold meetings with my counterparts from mexico and guatemala, el salvador, and honduras. this was among the main part of our agenda. we created a high-level working group to develop a strategy to deal with the situation. this working group will hold its first meeting in the coming weeks.

they will help us formulate a coordinated plan of action. another potential solution to this problem is rather obvious. that is fixing our broken immigration system. the senate, on a bipartisan basis, has already passed a bill that would gone a long way to doing just that. the issue is compelling, the solution is present. the need to reaffirm our commitment to remaining a nation of immigrants is critical. if we are to remain true to our heritage, we must fix our immigration system. we must bring people out of the shadows. we must establish a path to citizenship. [applause] there are a variety of ways in which much of this can be done.

and in the face of house in action, this administration, this administration will proceed. it will do so lawfully, and it will do so in a manner that is consistent with our values. we will, as americans always have, seek to make our union more perfect. this is our promise. in the meantime -- [applause] within america's borders the increasing numbers of unaccompanied children of hearing them in our -- appearing in our immigration courts is a challenge. one way to address that challenge is to facilitate access to legal representation for these children. though these children may not have a constitutional right to a lawyer, we have holocene -- policy reasons and a moral obligation. that is why the justice

department started creating a plan even before the surge of children last july. ollie up federal agencies to meet that goal by grieving volunteer opportunities that are aligned with agency priorities. the justice department's response to that call is clear. by partnering with the corporation for national and community service to design and implement a new legal aid program, the department is protecting vulnerable populations while improving operations in our communities. justice americorps was announced in june. it will protect the children who make the long and difficult journey to the united states without a parent or legal guardian. we are announcing one point wait million dollars in grant awards to legal a gorgeous nations to more than 15 cities around the

country -- legal aid organizations in more than 15 cities around the country. we will begin to represent these children in our immigration ports in early 2015. the justice americorps members will also help to identify children who have been victims of human trafficking or abuse. and as appropriate will refer them to authorities. the shapes the values that we have always had with justice. we will empower a new generation of aspiring attorneys and paralegals to serve the country in important legal aid to some of the most full verbal individuals who interact with our legal system. it will bring our system closer to our highest ideals.

the way we treat those in need, and particularly young people who may be fleeing from abuse, persecution, and violence goes to the core of who we are as a nation. thankfully, with the work we have underway, it is clear that we stand together this week in defiance of the block and the narrow politics of the moment. truly -- [laughter] we stand together in our assertion that civil rights are human rights, and must be extended to all. we stand together in our demand that equal work should be performed for equal pay and that our daughters deserve the same opportunities as our sons. we stayed together in a conviction that it is the right and the responsibility of every american to forge his or her own

path. to extend the promise of our great country until it includes every single person who dares and dreams to call this nation their home. as we carry this work into the future i want you to know how proud i am to count you as colleagues and partners. but always remember, the positive change is not inevitable. positive change is not minimal. -- inevitable. it is a function of hard work and resilience. i'm confident that together we will make our great nation even more great and more just. i look forward to everything we will achieve together in the months and years ahead, and i want to thank you once again for all that you do. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> democratic congressman steny hoyer of maryland is our guest as house minorities with. congress mayt how do with president obama's plan for crisis in the upcoming midterm elections. watch the interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. excited to announce that it is launch week for the 11th annual student cam documentary contest. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded to middle and high school contest toward winners. this years theme is the broadest ever -- the three branches and you.

we would like you to tell the story that demonstrates how a of theaction by one three branches of government has affected you in your life or your community. the competition is open to students in grades 6-12, and students may work alone or in groups of three. contestants are asked to provide a 7-12 minute documentary to support their chosen product and to incorporate some c-span programming. the $100,000 in cash prizes will , and the students grand prize winner with the best entry will win $5,000. the deadline is january 20, 2015. studentcam.org for more on this year's contest. with republicans currently holding the majority in the house by a margin of 34 members,

we take a look at the democrats chances for taking control after november's midterm. from "washington journal," is his 45 minute -- this is 45 minutes. cohn of "the new york covering demographics and pulling for "the upshot." >> it is a section of the "new york times" that offers data. >> when you look at elections, you wrote a recent piece for "the upshot." how is it possible that democrats who have won the popular vote in five of the last six president elections are at such a disadvantage in the house, directly the most representative body of government? of our government that was intended to represent

the people. the senate was originally intended to support the states. democrats had this national advantage in the popular vote, and they won the vote in 2012, but they have not been able to translate it into a majority in the house. as november, no one seriously anticipated they will retake the chamber. most reasons are structural. structural. they are about the distribution of democratic voters, the places where they live and the polerization of the country. democrats are concentrated in urban areas where they win by massive margins. the district of columbia went for president obama with 90% of the vote. there are few areas of the country where republicans win -- when you draw the corresponding republican rural districts, the votes that are left are more in the republican. the democrats waste more votes

in these detects. at the same time, the republicans had control of redistricting a lot of large industrial competitive states where they were able to lock democrats into the spatial inefficiency problems and -- the democrats could overcome this if they want a sufficient number of competitive districts. but there are fewer and fewer competitive districts such that today if the democrats were to win the overwhelming proportion of competitive districts, they would not be able to translate that to a majority in the house. it's not that they are swaying people. it's they are not going into it having won these places already. in the past when dealts had the democrat had the house, they had

an a large portion of the south, since that was the heart of the democratic party. it was up until -- through 1994, the democrats one -- they seen had some west by 2006. without that starting number of democrats in the south that were allowing them to defy their underlying structural problems, a lot of them legalizing the problem by having already solved it, they are forced to win red seats to compensate. there's not a really good record of defeating incumbent congress people in congressional districts that are favorable to them even when the national environmental conditions are favor to believe the challenging party. host: we're talking about nate cohn's piece.

here's your chance. our line for independents. you can make your thoughts known on twitter and facebook as well. you mentioned gerrymandering. i think our viewers would say that's the sole reason why you can't get a democratically-controlled house anymore. >> i think it's really important to note that gerrymandering makes a big difference. the title is wie democrats can't win the house, which may be too strong. if the democrats can't win the house, it's because of gerrymandering. the fact democrats do not have the house is not because of gerrymandering. they would not have the house even with their congressional districts. the reason is the criteria is not the same as wanting partisan balance at all cost, a fair district as is generalry defined is compact, which makes it

harder to draw the districts that stretch that balance them out artificially. it comports with the voting rights act, which can compel or bar the dissolution of minority-majority districts, which creates a problem for democrats in these urban areas. they generally protect incumbents when they are done by bipartisan commissions. and all of these factors lock democrats into their spatial inefficiency problem. you could draw a fair set of districts in terms of parts and balance. but those districts are unlikely to to be drawn unless they are doing therm purposely. and the criteria do not encoverage them. >> as far as bet r chances to regain seats, is it midterms or presidential election? >> historically the challenging

party has a difficult time -- the party with the president has a difficult time gaining seating in the house. they don't get these 60-seat waives very often. in a midterm e election, the party of the president almost never gains a significant number of house seats. dealts have an advantage in the national popular vote. it's not a coincidence the democrats finally lost the house in 1994 when bill clinton had the presidency. nor is it a coincidence that the republicans lost the house in 2006 during the republican presidency. so i don't think the next couple of of elections are necessarily great opportunities for democrats. the 2018 midterms could be their

best -- host: i was going to say, as far as november is concerned, what do you see for the house? >> i don't see a lot of change. i think the republicans are favored to pick up seats. there are many more competitive democrat held seats than there are republican held seats. the democrats will not benefit from president year turnout. if the republicans do well and they pick up five or 10 seats, i think that makes a big difference. if the dealts want to retake the house in 2016 or 2018, they have to stay in striking distance. if the republicans win too many more of the republican-leaning districts, it will be hard to do the math against democrats in 2018. host: i'll give you the numbers again. let's start on our independent lines. this is howard from miami. good morning.

>> good morning. host: go ahead, sir. >> first of all, i think that the republicans are probably pretty much going to take -- have permanent control of the house of representatives at least for the next 10 years because the census was 2010 that's when they took control of everything. that's only part of the problem. with the demographic change, it's going to be minority population is going to be h the majority. the republican party is not going to have much of constituency. what they are doing to address that -- they have introduced legislation to change the way the electoral college vote is allocated to basically in the gerrymander districts. if they get that through, they will have permanent control of presidency because the democrat will never be able to win the presidency again. as far as the senate is

concerned, where all the voter i.d. laws are intend to take effect because that's a state-wide case that can't gerrymander. guest: what i was referring to is a republican proposal to make it so that the electoral votes of large states aren't allocated on a winner take all basis but instead by congressional district. which if you do nit a blue state, would that mean you were splitting the vote and helping the republicans compare to the red states where they would win all of them. i think that is unlikely. the republicans have not been able to implement this policy. i think it would be regarded as an attempt to cheat in our elections. if they did that, you would to start to see a real movement by democrats to follow suit by banding up in sufficient numbers for a national popular vote compact where democrat large state said we're going to give our votes to the candidate who

wins the popular vote. that's something that may not be allowed by the constitution but could result in a supreme court case. in terms of the voting -- in terms of the house districts and growing minority-majority, it will pose a problem for the republicans. the votes rites act is forcing congressional mat makers to put that nonwhite population in their districts where they would be voting for democrats and not doing as much to harm the chances of congressional republicans. >> good morning bill. >> good morning. host: go ahead. >> my position is just like the gentleman said. the house of representatives represents the people. 300 and something million and does three hundred and something

million, muslims, catholics, they all believe in gods and the democratic party voted got out of their platform. how can they survive? >> religious backgrounds, does that play into voting habits? >> it is one of the biggest factors that underpins how people vote, particularly among white people. if you show someone a white person and toupt figure out how they vote, figuring out if they are a white evangelical christian is how you do it. as the population becomes more secular than given credit for, that's a problem for the republicans. >> your piece highlights pennsylvania. why do you focus on it? >> think it is an an example of the democratic problem. philadelphia and pittsburgh

stroet for dealts. they voted 83% for president obama in 2012. if you only get an -- you only get an area of 67% that vote for romney. when you divvy up those districts, you would still up with the republicans have the majority of the congressional districts. i like the state because it's one where republicans did gerrymander but you can say, even if this was dun fairly, the democrats would be at a disadvantage. >> governor's race -- >> it's looking like the exception than the rule. that tdz only state where a republican incumbent governor tom core bit is poised to lose reelection. a lot of the other controversial republican governors in blue states look like they are

competitive still. they may fall the same way that mr. core bit did, but that seems like a narrow problem for the republicans. >> this is robert from tennessee. democrats line. go ahead, please. >> good morning. i'm rob martin. i'm running as a democrat probably for the first time since the 1890s. i was wondering if you had any advice on how to get swing voters interested in a first-time democratic candidate. guest: i'm not sure exactly where in the state that is. if you're the first democrat running since 1890, you must be in the eastern part of the state where republicans have traditionally fared quite well. i think this is a really tough year for that. i won't mince words. i'm not an expert on how to run a campaign, but i wish you the best luck. >> as far as independent voters

and how they sway as far as how people vote and what that means for the house of representatives -- >> i think if the democrats could win romney voters in districts like in eastern tennessee where i'm presuming the caller is from, those are the types of districts that would help democrats. host: from virginia, this is brian on a republican good morning. go ahead. >> good morning. well, it seems to me that the reason is simply the message. a lot of republican districts that democrats don't seem to have a message that seems to resonate more urban voters are going to vote more democratically. more rural voters are going to vote more conservatively. that's the way things are.

i don't see how redistricting is going to provide must have of a change for that. it's the same reason that republicans are having problems nationally, is basically the message. so the same reason that democrats are having problems in rural areas is because of the message. host: thanks, caller. guest: there's so much truth to that. democrats used to be able to compete in a lot of these rural areas, particularly in the high land south and places like kentucky or west virginia or tennessee. they can't do that anymore because the party has adopted a message that is toward metropolitan areas. the party would have to modify their message. i think there are other issues too like gay rights and abortion

where they are making it more challenging by takes positions that are the core of the urban democrat party's platform. host: what do you see going forward? guest: before 2010, there were a large number of democratic held congressional districts in the south. the tea party was at its strongest there. they uniformly defeated the democratic incumbents where democrats has been traditionally able to defy the national party's problem. the tea party's energy was a big part of that. because the tea party was this sort of outrage that they were cultivating made it difficult for voters to vote for democrats at a time when the national party was unpopular. the legacy of 2010 is the democrats don't have way out of their disadvantage. host: independent line. good morning to mark. >> good morning.

i'm wondering why since the early '90s the republican states have been called red states whereas democrats have been called blue states when historically it's always been reversed where democrats have been kind of i guess aligned with socialism and i guess red, whereas republicans have always been blue. why is is that? >> that's quite unusual the andrea horwath the west liberal party in the united states is blue and not red for exactly the -- the democrats did not want to be associated with the color red during the cold war so there was a time when the media flipped them around from election to election just to make sure tho one had to own -- had to own the color red. i'm not exactly sure when the change happened, but i'm sure that by 2000 we were locked into

that red-blue map. after that people were no longer able -- they weren't going to be able to go back the next election and start referring to the bush state as blue states after we spent the 2011 election talking up blue states and red states. host: is it still looking red and blew or do do you find changing guest: a state like texas, obama got 41% of the vote. in california, george w. bush pulled within 10 points. these states are polarized but not that polarized. you have states like virginia and nevada that have moved towards democrats over the last decades. there are states like west virginia and arkansas where we see swings in the other direction. host: why democrat can't win the house. nate koen joining us on what it

means for gop hold. our next caller, bruce from cambridge wisconsin. >> thank you so much for c-span. we appreciate it out here on the countryside. i have two questions for the gentleman. first of all, given the large number of minorities who have been jailed and therefore in their states are not allowed to vote, were that formulation to change, would that affect the outcome of any of these races? and my second question, you can answer either or neither. if we can't change this somehow, are we going to have to ride this to the bottom of the atlantic like the titanic? and has he any suggestions we might make that could rescue this desperate situation we're in? thank you. i'll listen online. guest: in terms -- it's a huge problem for democrats that

millions of overwhelmingly african-american men are ineligible to vote in federal elections in states that bar felons from participating. i'm not sure that would make a big difference in the house. remember that because of the voting rights act making minority and majority districts -- if you had an influx of black voters, it would go into districts that were already democratic. in terms of changing the systems, i wonder if gerrymandering is the right focus. there are options for changing things. you can just a the criteria. there's no god-given rule about what a fair congressional district is supposed to look like. you can add partisan balance in what you think it should look like. i think that can be incorporated into constitutional amendments

or written into state law. i'm not sure about the process for how that happens. i'm not a lawyer. but i think that it's not like the constitution prescribes that congressional have to follow jurisdictional lines with precision. so it ought to be possible to change your criteria in a way that made bipartisan balance a -- host: 53% of the voters in 38% of the detects. this talks about democratic strength and how it affects the gop's chances. what does that mean? guest: what the graph is showing you s how vote margins allocated. in the blue, you can see the democrats are winning by a wider margin. ed that wasted vote phenomenon. part of that is gerrymandering.

80% voted for president obama. the city of philadelphia voted 85% for president obama. so even if you had a fair map, those blue lines will be taller than red ones. host: kevin from texas republican line. hi. >> actually, i think the term you're using, gerrymandering, could be called ungerrymandering because the democrats controlled the districting for 70-something years. texas is a good example. for a while there, every statewide office was going republican, but it wasn't until recently or more recently that the house, the state house went republican because of gerrymandering that the democrats had done before. really i think it comes down to the rural versus urban. if you took a map and just went by countywide votes, i think

you'd see that most of the country is republican. thank you. guest: it's true that democrats did their fair share of gerrymandering over the last half century. when people look at the stark increases in republican representation in some states like north carolina, part of the reason why the republicans made so many gains in 2010 is because republicans were taking over a process that had previously been led by democrats. i'm heard people complain, obama did almost as well in north carolina as he did in 2008 -- the old map was drawn by democrats. if the truth of the congressional map existed in north carolina in 2008, i don't think the republicans would have squeezed former congressional districts out of it. maybe they would have. but part of the reason why the change is so stark is because you are going from democratic drawn maps to republican-drawn

maps. host: this starting in 1996 where you see a lot of red and showing the margins of victory. that changes over time, that brings us to 2012. guest: it's important because when you have all that purple on the map, when there are so many competitives parts of the country, all you have to do -- when there are so few competitive districts, you're sort of locked into a small problem. like being down three points with a minute left versus the whole second half. host: ask what federal legislation controls how congressional districts are set up. >> a very ancient piece of legislation makes it so