the easter break, lawmakers are meeting with constituents in their home district. representatives al-- representative alma adams invited house democratic leader nancy pelosi to discuss challenges and opportunities for women in north carolina with several female mayors. the mayors attending the economic forum are from cities in representative adams' 12th district and she sent out a picture of the meeting. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. this weekend, join us for the 22nd annual virginia festival of the book in charlottesville, starting saturday at noon eastern. programs include author bruce hillman who discusses his book the man who stalked einstein, how nazi scientist philippe leonard changed history. then saturday at 7:00, patricia bell-scott on her book "the firebrand and the first lady,"

ortrait of a friendship. the book explores the relationship between civil rights activist pauline murray, co-founder of the national organization of women and first lady eleanor roosevelt. atricia bell-scott speaks with and later at the virginia festival of the book, kelly car lynn talks about growing up with her father. then sunday at 9:00, the author of "breakthrough: the making of america's first woman president," she looks at women leaders and the progress they are making. >> for a woman to be at the head of the most powerful country in

the world when one of our key allies doesn't allow women to drive and you know, our most significant enemy at this time, isis, is literally executing women and girls simply for being women and girls, i think this sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> when i tune in on the weekends, usually it's authors sharing their new releases. >> watching the nonfiction authors on book tv is the best television for serious readers. >> on c-span, they could have a longer conversation and delve into their subject. >> booktv weekends, they bring you author after author after author and spotlight the work of fascinating people. >> i love booktv and i'm a c-span fan. >> former house intelligence committee chairman pete hoekstra

recently wrote a book about obama administration foreign policy and the events leading up to the 2012 attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. this was recorded before the terror attack in brussels and it's about an hour. >> one of my favorite speakers, let me modify that my favorite speaker is here right now. congressman pete hoekstra was my closest friend when we served in the u.s. house of representatives together. he's from west michigan and was on the education committee with me and we had great fun causing interesting trouble for the department of education and it was great times. mr. schafer: here's what appened -- most of these people get elected to congress, they vote and they make nice speeches and so on but when the floor work is finished, they head for the golf course or

something. things of that sort. i wasn't really into that and i made friends with people who took the job seriously and knew that we had an important responsibility for our constituency. that's how pete and i became friends. one time, everybody left town, but phi or six of us stayed in town and we decided to go to the department of education and start meeting people and asking what they do for a living. started on the first floor, worked our way up a massive empoor of the building. l the way to the top floor where the secretary was, word had gotten out. that's an interesting anecdote but it's a fine state ofment the character of this particular former move congress. he was also chairman of the house intelligence committee and put that same kind of effort into traveling the country, visiting with all of the agencies that are responsibility

for national security and that process becomes a national security expert himself, sufficient that when he just published his recent book, "architects of disaster" and i got my hands on a hot off the press copy a few months ago, read it cover to cover and i urge you to do the same. it's in the back back here. it is very well written, it's con cease, it's easy to follow, it puts things in, you know, of all the perspectives and opinions you hear swirling on the internet and your morning news shows, this puts things in clear perfect i, solid evidence, irrefutable conclusion. i urge you, look how big it is. you can become an expert on national security, particularly the middle east right there, courtesy of ou next speaker. lpr to -- 31, 3131 to text 1 13 to lpr -- 313131 to lpr to make sure you

get our updates. let me turn the floor over to one of my very, very close friends, congressman pete hoekstra. mr. hoekstra: thanks, bob. great to be with you this morning. i want to talk to you this morning a little about the threat from radical jihadism, the war we face. i want to really focus on that and talk about as we go through it, i'll give you what i think are some of the lessons learned. you know, mark twain said, or he's attributed to have said, history doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rimes. and so i think there's a lot for us to learn, especially over the violent ears about the war with radical jihad. hat we call the stealth jihad. where they're trying to turn our

values of our society against us to change who we are. i will share a few bob schafer stories as we go through this process, as bob said he, and i were best friends for the years that we had the opportunity to erve together. i learned a lot from bob and was grateful that the people of colorado had send him to washington for us to do those kinds of things. then i also very much look forward to having a good portion of time to talk about the things that you want to talk about. answer some of your questions about whether it's n.s.a., c.i.a., those types of thing, i did have a phenomenal opportunity to serve in washington, to serve on the ntelligence committee. to be chairman of the intelligence committee or the lead republican for six years where you're the gang of eight and have an opportunity to have insights into some of the greatest secrets that we have as

a country that we employ to keep merica safe. regardless of when you think the war on terror started or when they started attacking us, whether it's 1979 with the takeover of our embassy in tehran, whether it's 2001, 9/11, from a military standpoint i think all the evidence is out there today that we are losing hat war. this is not a war where over the last decade, over the last 15 years we have made any progress in fighting it. as a matter of fact, we are going downhill and going downhill relatively quickly. if you take a look at what's going on in europe today, they are in danger of losing not only the military, not that it's

being fought on their ground today but they're in danger of using their cultural identity because of what they've done over the last 20 to 25 years and the challenge is for those of us in this room who love america, is to learn from the experience of what's going on in europe to make sure that we don't make the same kinds of mistakes that they've made and those -- in those parts and other parts of the world. the real question is, how does a guy who is a dutch immigrant, i came, my parents immigrated here when i was three years old, moved through this process, i'm in a -- i move into a marketing career, get into this kind of position to be talking about national security. so let me give you a little context. i think there's some lessons there. my parents left europe in 1956, 11 years after world war r. people say, why would your

parents leave? 11 years after world war ii. europe was still a very depressing place. they still had not recovered from world war ii. and the devastation system of they're looking at it, they've got three kids. 3, 6, and 10. they're looking at us and say, wow, you know, there's not a lot of opportunity for our kids. we can make a live bug if we want opportunity for our kids, we need to go somewhere else. and america was welcoming and said, come to america. if you think about it, 11 years after world war ii, if it was still a depressing place, take that lesson and apply it to the middle east today. iraq. syria. yemen. libya. other places in northern africa.

how quickly do we think the middle east is going to be able to rebuild itself and be back at any point of stability, coherence, or stable government and we are now looking at a decades-long issue in front of us. take a look at the cities that have been destroyed and parts of iraq, aleppo and other parts of syria, the bombing that's now going on in libya. and think if they can't rebuild europe in 11 year, how quickly do you think they're going to be able to erebuild the physical structure in the middle east and how long do you think it's going to be able to -- it's going to be before you can actually bring the people of those regions back together? they lived together for, you know, hundreds of years but with a genocide going on against christians and other religious minorities throughout the middle east, how long is it going to be before you're able to put the

fabric of that society back together? it's going to be a long time this problem is going to be with us for a long time. my parents came to america, they ke their kids with them, and the christian school, the local christian school principal at the middle school had a great job. his job was to help assimilate us. what does that mean? we had sponsors back then who helped us, you know, get assimilated, have a place to live, find a job and those kinds of things. we were originally supposed to go to cleveland. a couple of weeks before my parents immigrated we ended up moving the family from cleveland that was going to be our sponsor backed out so we -- they found a sponsor for us in west michigan. that's how we ended up going from the netherlands to holland,

michigan. but you guys are in colorado, you may not quite appreciate this as much as i do, how thankful i am for it but that move made sure i was going to be a wolverine instead of a buckeye. so that is what we are real y i thankful about. but the job of our principal at the middle school was very interesting. we go in and we meet with him, i don't remember it of course, but my parents tell the story, you fill out a lot of paperwork and they go through the process and they ask them, you know, what's this kid's name? andres. ok, he'll become an true. we got americanize it. they look at and say what's her name?

keppi. ok, she's going to become grace. think about the fun people leek bob could have if this system were still in place. they look at this little kid, what's his name? and they tell him and they said, don't have that name here. there's no way to americanize it. ok. what's his middle name? they said petra. ok, peter. he's going to be pete. at 3 years old, i lost my first ame. and the -- you guys can laugh about it, it's traumatic for me, right? so you know, it's kind of like at 3, 4, 5 years old, i'm going around, they're calling me one thing at home and something else when i go somewhere else. focus there was, you had a sponsor family, you got

integrated, my brother and sisters went to school, there was no english as a second language and i'm not saying whether that's a good program or a bad program but it was kind of like, my sister tells the story, she gets to school, all she speaks is dutch. all the teachers and everybody else speak english. she has to go to the bathroom, it takes her a couple of hours but finally she's able to communicate, i really got to go. but it's about becoming an american. that's the lesson. you're coming to america. and the focus here, this is my parents fully bought it into -- into it. you're coming to america, you're going to become americans, we're going to do everything we can to help assimilate you and share our values and help build our country. in some cases year starting to lose that focus and say, america is something very different. there's no long aeroshared values system, judeo christian, it's like america is not a

metting pot where we become americans, it's no longer a melting pot but it's a place where everybody can come and be whoever they want to be. that's something we have to have a national dialogue on, saying that's not -- that's not what it means to be about me. that's not what it means to be american. america is about embracing and sharing a set of goals and values together. and that is -- that's something that i think europe has forgotten about. and the dutch in the netherlands, germany, these places, they lost site of -- sight of the fact that there was a culture and value to their society and just allowed people to come in and they never forced them, encouraged them and thepped them to become dutch. to become german. to become swede. and they're now facing some of those problems. so then let's transition over to what bob was talking about, what

i see right now in this military ar against radical jihaddists. 2001, i get put on the intelligence committee for all the wrong reasons. in january. and the nine months later we have 9/11. so for the next nine and a half years i spend almost all my time focused on intelligence. work on the intelligence committee. i don't do much else in washington for the next nine and a half years. 2003, one of my colleagues on the intelligence committee comes up to me and says, hay, pete. you want to go to libya with me and meet with gaddafi. i'm like, no, not really. that was not on my bucket list. i've gone with bob to ukraine. i've met putin. i've gone with bob to uzbekistan

and meet kareemof. i've been with bob, we went to afghanistan and met with karzai. but i never thought about meeting gaddafi. and i just kind of laffed about it and i said no, and he said, no, seriously. the bush administration wants us to go meet with gaddafi because there are indications that gaddafi, after he's seeing, for whatever reason, we've had sanctions against him, republicans and democrats, and this is an important point, republicans and democrats consistently for 25 years had had a strategy ocontain, confront and ultimately defeat gaddafi. republicans and democrats. the executive branch and congress. had a strategy. they said, this guy is evil. he facilitating the shoot down of pan a.m. 103. he's done other terrorist attacks against the united states. we're going to ostracize him from the world community until he changes his behavior. we are going to confront him and

contain him and ultimately we'll defeat him. it appeared to be working. he wants to come in from the cold. so we go, i go with him. group of us go and we go and meet with gaddafi. and between 2003 and 2009 i have the opportunity to go back and meet with him on two more occasions. so i'm one of the few people who has had the opportunity to go to libya and meet with the, you know, the madman of libya on three different occasions. and what we do, what we find when we meet with him is that yes, he is interested in changing his behavior. and within 24 months, through the work of the state department and a lot of other negotiation the intelligence community and all these types of things, gaddafi -- he doesn't become a boy scout and all of these types of things but he becomes, it is

a phenomenal win in american foreign policy that republicans and democrats could take shared credit and responsibility for. what does he do? he pays reparations to the victims of pan am 103. does that bring the family members back? does that heal the wounds? absolutely not. but at that point in time it's about all that's left to do. he decides to give up his nuke program. it's not some rube goldberg scheme where, you know if you push here and push here and push there on that, you'll figure out that they're not doing nuke weapons anymore, maybe. which is what we have with iran. what he does is, we go over there, how do we know his nuke program is gone? it's now sitting somewhere in a warehouse in the united states of america next to the a of the cav nant and we'll never find it again. -- arc of the covenant and we'll never find it again. but it's in a warehouse somewhere. they crated it in, took it from libya, shipped it to the united

states, our secretary of energy accepted the shipment and it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere in the united states of america. so he gai up his nuke program. and then most importantly, because when you take a look at the fires that were -- fighters that were fighting u.s., afghanistan, iraq, those types of things, you'll realize they came from places that you are now on the front page of american news. where did they come from? per capita, no country provided more fighters to al qaeda to fight us in afghanistan and iraq than libya. they came from a place called benghazi. they came from a place called durna. and why did they come from there? because if they stayed there, gaddafi would kill them he never liked them but after 2004, 2005, he became an ally with us and -- in fighting radical jihaddists.

o a great foreign policy win because we were building allies for what has now evolved into the greatest threat against the united states of america which is radical jihad. radical islamists. and we were building a coalition and people that we didn't necessarily agree with on lots of different issues but at least on that core issue they agreed with us. meeting with gaddafi, you could sit there and this guy had fought with them, had fought radical jihaddists for years. the interesting thing is, you know, being the chair of intel or being on the intel committee and traveling around the world, ome of you may remember that "parade magazine," the sunday insert you see in your sunday papers, every once in a while they used to publish the top 20 worst dictators in the world. and so one sunday morning i'm

opening up the paper and i'm looking at the front cover and you know, there's putin, there's musharraf, mubarak, gaddafi, asaud and you go through the list. used to look at it like, this is interesting. i'm looking through, checking them, say, i've met with him. i've met with him. pretty soon i've got half of the boxes checked. i'm like, what kind of job do i have where these are the kinds of people that i'm meeting with? but in many of these cases, where from a human rights record and a lot of other things, they weren't necessarily american allies, or excuse me, they didn't represent american values, but what they did do is they helped us in fighting the enemies and helping keep america secure. mubarak. egypt. before we went into iraq, i remember going and meeting with a lot of the leaders in the

mideast and an interesting perspective is they all warned us. in advance. be careful about what you are thinking about doing. this will not be nearly as easy as what you think it is. it might be. and what we've learned with gaddafi and mubarak and saddam and the folks in afghanistan is getting rid of a two-bit dictator, is not that hard for the greatest military power in the united states. excuse me, the greatest power in the world, that's not hard to do. putting the pieces back together is really hard. but the other thing that these folks told us as we went around and met with them is, we're sharing this information and this knowledge with you because we want you to make your decision in a fully informed way. the second thing that they told

us is, regard lofse the decision that you make, we will be with you. so like mubarak, over a period of time, over fly the suez canal, intelligence, everything. abdullah in jordan. they did everything we asked them to do for us to be successful. gaddafi got to the point where he was doing everything we asked him to do in terms of giving us unsights into libyan fighters that might be in afghanistan that might be in iraq, that might be plotting against the united states and those types of things. so these folks all did what we asked them to do to help keep america safe and for us to be successful in the war that we were fighting. in 2009, it all changed. think about this. i laid out the strategy to get gaddafi to switch. it was a bipartisan strategy that extended long term. foreign policy is hard and you

don't move, you don't move foreign policy very quickly or very -- if you do move it quickly you don't move it very effectively. and in 2008, 2007, the current president, and this is where you have to listen so carefully to what candidates tell you, you actually have to believe them. everybody says politicians, you know, spend way too much time lying to the american people, actually, no, listen to what they say. obama warned us. in 2007 he was on public radio in new hampshire, i believe, and he said the day after i'm elected, the world will see us differently. the muslim world will see us differently. and that was a promise. and you know what? he's carried through on that promise. the world does see us differently in 2016 than they

did in 2008. because he fundamentally changed our approach against radical jihadism and the threats that we face out there. think about it. 2009, i'm in colorado, and this is when there's the green revolution in iraq. this is when tissue in iran. this is when there are people on the streets in iran protesting for freedom. and what is america's response? nothing. silence. and you're think, wow if there's anybody we ought to be embracing, it's the people in the streets in iran who are clamoring for more democracy and freedom. but we are silent. we then go to, we then go to egypt and the president gives his famous speech. and i'm not -- i'm picking on

this president right now but over the last 15 years, there's plenty of blame to go around to outline where -- why we're in the position we're in today. by both parties. but in 2009, the president gos to cairo and gives a speech. who does he invite in to sit in the front rows? the muslim brotherhood. and who is the muslim brotherhood? the muslim brotherhood had been formed in the 1920's to re-establish the caliphate that had just been defeated in the 15 to 20 years before that. they want to re-establish a caliphate, reimpose sharia law and that's -- they've had a long-term strategy to do that. they're very patient. but that's who the president invites to sit in the front row. because he believes that, and this is the statement from 2007,

the world will see us differently because i am president. that's a very arrogant statement. the world will see america differently because one person is now in the white house. and that everybody else, whether it's the state department or everybody that's served before, they're now irrelevant. and that the world will look at us and they will change their self-interest, they will change their behavior all because we have one new person in the white house. so he decided that he would engage with the muslim brotherhood. sent a very clear signal to the muslim brotherhood but also sent a very clear signal to our allies, people who sit by america, that this is a new world. i'm nervous. what happens? the muslim brotherhood, quote-unquote, the arab spring

which has not turned into an arab spring, it's really turned into an arab disaster throughout the middle east. mubarak is overthrown, almost dies in jail, thankfully the military comes back and throw the muslim brotherhood out. egypt is still trying to recover from that disaster because during those 12 to 14 months that the muslim brotherhood was in control, what happened? radical jihaddist elements established themselves in the sinai pence la. they are still there on the southern border. -- sinai peninsula. they are still there on the southern border. and we are trying to, the egyptian goth is still trying to root them out and bring stability to their country. what happens in libya? the freedom fighters in libya, sure there are some freedom fighters that were in egypt, there were some freedom fighters in libya. but by and large what happens in libya, what we did is engage with radical jihaddists to

overthrow gaddafi. what end result is happened on 9/11, in 2012 in benghazi is individuals and groups that maybe not the exact individuals but the groups that were trained and equipped by nato to overthrow gaddafi used the resources and the training to kill our ambassador and kill three other americans. because their objective was not to establish democracy in libya. their objective was to take over the government, establish the caliphate, establish sharia law and as soon as they got rid of gaddafi they were going to get rid of the u.s. guess what? they succeeded. the u.s. left and we're now in a position where we are bombing in libya because they have established a caliphate, there's 5,000 jihaddists estimated to be in libya who are now exporting

fighters, equipment, and ideology into northern africa and where do they send their ideology, fighters and weapons first? come on, you know. syria. people have reported, you know, weapons, fighters, libya has a history of exploiting fighters. they -- of exporting fighters. they exported them to syria through turkey. it was flush with weapons. nato flooded libya with weapons. u.a.e. flooded libya with weapons after gaddafi was gone. l his arms caches were liberated. they went turkey into syria. i'm not sure what the connection is between how, where, who and what was watching and facilitating from the united states but i'll tell you one

with thing, we were more encouraging of it than stopping it, because why? assad needed to go. and assad is an evil man. but you know, we call the book, you know, the destruction of libya. at one point in time we talked about coaching the lid on the garbage can. one of the things that mubarak, gaddafi, i stole that from steve doocy at fox news. i need to give him credit for that because i was meeting, we were just talking before the show one morning, i was talking to him about libya and -- talked about what gaddafi did and he was an evil man, still keeping down, he l jihaddists was like, kind of like keeping the lid on the garbage can. they were imperfect but they kept the lid on the garbage can and they were concerned and they were fighting radical jihaddists

and as we weakened all three of those we created an environment for radical jihadism to grow, embracing the muslim brotherhood, and it's not just over there. we're completing a report, and we're going to be putting a book out on this in the near future, we not only have embraced the muslim brotherhood, the people that want to destroy and undercut western democracy all around the world, but we've embraced them and we have allowed represent i haves of the muslim brotherhood to come into the united states, their front organization, we have allowed them access to our government agencies and into the white house which is unconscionable. these people want to destroy the united states and they have access now to the highest levels of our government to inform, to quote-unquote inform our foreign policy. this is where we are today. we're going t is

to, in the next week or so we'll have another report out from i.t.t. look at the evidence. dical 01 to 2006, ra jihaddist attacks on a global basis were dispersed, killed about 3,000 individuals per year. from 2011 -- or 2007 to 2011, that number increased to somewhere in the high 3,000's. 2012 and 2013, we went from 3,500 to ,700 per year on average to over 9,000. t's starting to concentrate. 2014-2015, we've gone from 9,000 to 28,000 per year.

victims of radical jihaddist attacks. those attacks are now concentrated in two areas, primarily. primarily in the middle east and in africa, they're concentrated because as bob will remember when we were in congress, we said -- this is the whole strategy about going into afghanistan. nobody knows where afghanistan is, right? but the strategy was, we can't provide them a safe haven where they can plan, prepare, train to attack us. so we're going to go to the end of the world, we're going to go into afghanistan. and the joke about afghanistan, afghanistan was formed when all the countries around it decided what territory they didn't want and true the boundaries and what was left was afghanistan. but we were willing to go to afghanistan to make sure there was not a safe place for these people to plan and prepare and train to attack america.

we would go to afghanistan. well guess what? they now have a relatively, sure, we're bombing. ok. the problem is, our planes fly over and too many times they come back with a bomb still on. but we've given them a big scare because we've flown over them. but they've now got a safe haven in, well, you know, somewhat of a safe haven where they organize with the caliphate in syria and iraq. and they've got a safe haven until more recently in libya where they can export. so in the middle east, what's going to happen here? what are our predictions at the investigative project in terrorism for 2016, 2017, 2018? number of fatalities and attacks is going to go up because we don't have effective strategies. the second thing that we predict is that in the middle east, you

know, with what's going on with syria, iraq, yemen, watch out what's going to happen with turkey. watch out what's going to happen with jordan. watch out what's going to happen with saudi. watch out what's going to happen in egypt. and watch out what's going to happen in israel. it is -- it's a rat's nest right now. and we don't have effective strategies to confront it and contain it. so it's going to grow and get more dangerous in the middle east. the second thing is, take a look at africa. nine of the countries now, there's, you know, back in 2000, one of the couldn't -- it was one or two countries dispersed widely. now there's 18 countries where terrorist activity is consen tritted. 18 countries in africa.

that number is going to grow because they've got a base where they can train, prepare and attack other places into africa. so you're going to see africa get to be a bigger hot spot. but what do you have if you have the middle east and if you've got libya and northern africa? you have entree into europe. through turkey, last year, diane and i were in -- we were in budapest. we got on a train saturday morning, typical russian efficiency, you got in one line to go into another line to get into a line to buy your ticket. ok. big train station. there were 10 of us there. d we took the train from budapest to prague. we got to prague, the next morning we turned on tv, the station that we were in the day

before was now surrounded by 5,000 to 10,000 refugees and migrants. germany had let in over a million. o you've got this gateway. -- gateway now of people, refugees, fighters going into europe. you've got the gateway from libya. why? because it's not that far. across the mediterranean. you can get to the soft underbelly of europe. europe is at risk. i think that the security services in europe are going to be absolutely stressed with the new folks coming in, with the folks they've already had here. you are going to see an increase of terrorism and violence in europe in the next 18 to 24 months. there's no way they can stop it. and then what you're going to see is, they're going to also expand into asia. they are on the move.

they have the momentum right now. and we as americans in the west fail to realize it and admit it and confront it. isis is the j.v. team, who are winning. this doesn't look like -- is the j.v. team, we are winning. this doesn't look like winning to me. when you see you've got failed states and libya, sir ark iraq, gemen, failed -- syria, iraq, yemen, failed states where with -- are where these groups migrate to. take a look at it and go back to where we started which is that when it breaks, it's very, very hard to put together. it's going to take a long time. the middle east is broken. africa is broken. large portions of africa are broken. and they're -- more of it is going to get broken over the next 18 to 24 months. europe is on the verge of

breaking. for europe to get back to the europe that we knew 10 to 15 years ago, i'm not sure it's even possible. ok. but the question is how far will it go and how far will it deteriorate before they actually put in place. what you'll see in many countries is, and we look at this very, very closely. there's now a break between the populace and the governed. the and the governing. -- and the governed. the people being governed. that doesn't niecely -- necessarily mean you're going to end up doing the right thing but there's a disconnect. governments in europe saying, come on in. welcome in. you're welcome here. and you've got the people in the communities saying, uh-uh. this isn't working for us. we need if we're going to do that, which we question, but if we're going to do it, we've got to do some kind of assimilation process or whatever or we're going to lose our germanness.

think about it here in the united states. we face some of those same kinds of issues. how many of you heard about legislation that a lot of states are considering, american law for american courts. heard about that? something that's in colorado? no. no. people say, why would you have to do that? because -- what's going on in europe. in many parts of europe there are little enclaves or areas where they allow for sharia law. right? if we talk about -- think about it. when people who are talking about american law for american courts don't mention any other kind of thing. they just say, we want to reaffirm that in america, think about it, that in america, we want to affirm that if you go to court, you will be judged by mesh law and nothing else. hat's all. for those that are espousing

ose kinds of ideas, you're a racist. that's hate speech. no it's not. that's a speech that says i love america. and i kind of like our system. it's imperfect but it's better than anything else out there and i want to make sure that people who are here recognize that if you're in america, you will live under american law. fairly simple. do we really want to embrace some of the philosophies and ideology thatst -- that's out there in some of the other places? take a look at what radical islam, how they treat religious inorities. not value i embrace, that we in america embrace. their treatment of women. treatment of kids. human rights. basic human rights and human values. no. we have to reinforce who we are

and what we need to do. so the trend out there, i think, is relatively bleak. i'm thrilled that there's a group like this that's here today. but i encourage you, the threat to america is real. and it's today. this is not something that we can leave to our kids and grandkids. this is something that -- this is what i talk to a lot of my friends in europe, we wish we had talked about this and addressed this 15 years ago. it's much harder for us to address it today. and the second lesson they tell us is, learn from us and don't make the same mistakes that we made. america is strong. we are the greatest. we are exceptional. and the question that we now have is what are we going to do to make sure we keep that exceptionalism and we continue to be the hope of the world. does that mean everybody has to be like us? no. for everybody else to get to

where we want to be, we'd love for that to happen but we're not going to employ our military to make that happen. we're going to set an example for whoer and what the benefits are so people want to aspire to what we are and who we are and when they see who we are, they will want it and they will make that change for themselves and by -- and we will encourage it because that is what they want, not because it's imposed on hem. that's the challenge we face, i believe we're losing today and we need a national dialogue to move this forward. democrat and republican labels off this. we need to talk about what it is to be american. we can no longer have a foreign policy that shifts dramatically every time we put a new person in the white house. we need a long-term policy that this is who america is and from one president to the next president, from a republican to

a democrat, we may tweak our foreign policy but never again will we dramatically, dramatically change our foreign policy that, you know, we are in the mess that we are today. our enemies no longer fear us. our friends no longer trust us. people say why won't assad negotiate with us? this is not brain surgery folks. he's looked at mubarak and said this is a guy that did everything the americans asked him to do for 30 years and the americans threw him under the bus. ey look at gaddafi and say -- he was uy who can a guy who did what they asked nd he was under the bus.

gaddafi lived six months longer than lane before we killed him. what is the lesson to assad or anybody else out there? that's a good idea. i think i'll fwoshte with the americans. if i improve human rights and go after radical jihaddists they are going to be with me. i don't think so. that's not going to work. so we've got to get beyond this. we need to develop a shared vision where we want to go, what american values are, how we're going to promote them in the future and learn from the lessons and mistakes and the good things that we've done over the last 15, 20 years to move forward. with that, i am more than willing to take whatever questions you want to throw my way. [applause]

>> are there any -- two-part question. are there any democrats that could give that same kind of speech to a room? and if not, if you were in this room with a group of democrats, what would they be throwing back at you? mr. hoekstra: yeah,ic there are. -- yeah, i think there are. there are some. i don't think there's a lot of democrat bus there are some that clearly see the threat from radical jihaddists. what would they throw back at me? you had hillary clinton was talking about, this is -- this amazes me. she talked about in one of the debates said, libya is a great -- is the best example of the use of smart power. it's like, you've got to be kidding me. but that's where they believe. what i think they'd throw back is, you mentioned in the front

row here, hoekstra you're a racism, islam fobe, you know, and you don't see the world clearly. what i do in the book is i outline a series of what i think are realistic foreign policy -- foreign policy is not black and white. most of the world i dealt with in foreign policy, it's gray. to move forward you sometimes have to do business with bad people. and there's a whole series of things like that. it's messy. you see it every day. they're racist, they're scared. and those kinds of things. and the other one that they throw out, all you want to do is go to war. no, i don't want to go to war. i would have left gaddafi in place. i would have left assad in place. and if we had left -- i would have left mubarak in place. if we had left those three governments in place, the middle east would be a whole lot different today. i think we also have to learn,

because why would i say that? because i think we learn, hopefully we learned the lesson from iraq when you go in and break it, it's really, really hard to put back together. >> you partly answered my question there, it seems like a game of whack-a-mole, we take them out and more show up in the vacuum. it seems like maybe our best strategy is to support a few strongmen even though that seems unpleasant in itself. mr. hoekstra: it is in place -- it is unpleasant. they're not great choices. but the end rult, they kept the lid on the garbage can and when they were gone, because nato and the west were unwilling to put the resources and all those types of things in place to keep the lid on, you -- you see failed states. the other thing i report, where you see the greatest number of terrorist attacks on those types of things? in the failed states. what are the failed states?

the ones we've been most active in. there's a total nexus. >> sir, you describe a change that you would like to see in the political dynamic such that foreign policy doesn't go through these abrupt changes between administrations, especially different parties. how do you see that actually occurring? mr. hoekstra: the -- just a whole new level of maturity back into the political process. >> so we're all going to mature all of a sudden? mr. hoekstra: no. you're asking how it could happen. i'm not saying it will happen. >> how do you see it happening, how can we make it happen? mr. hoekstra: i'm very pessimistic. i listen to campaigns today on both sides of the aisle and i

see a lot of phrases thrown around that provide the american people with the hope and expectation that there are easy answers to these, what i see as deep, enduring problems and it's kind of like, no. this is not -- this is hard, this is not political, you're using this for political advantage. so no, i'm very pessimistic and i see the real opportunities as you go from one that -- what we've seen over the last 12 to 14 years, we're going to see for the next 12 to 14 years for foreign policy is a political hot spoth. it is a leverage point to win elections and it's going to flow back and forth. why? because foreign policy is really, really hard. people are going to make mistakes. and the other political party is going to leverage that to, for their political advantage and we as americans are going to, we're going to suffer.

so i'm possess midwestic about us actually developing the maturity to have the kind of discussions we need on foreign policy. i'm sorry, i wish i had an optimistic answer but i don't. i lived through it when, you know, i was on the intel committee, you know, there was all this discussion about black sites, republicans and democrats all knew that these things were going on. we were briefed. we were briefed in detail about what enhanced interrogations were. where they were being used. who they were being used on. it was a gang of eight type of thing. and then i started seeing it in the press. and i know where it came from. it didn't come out of the intel community. it came out of congress. and it was people using it for political advantage because they just -- they thought they could destroy the other political party and use it to gain advantage in the next election and you know what? they were right.

and they hurt america because of it. and that doesn't mean i agree with every one of those policies, but every single republican and democrat in that room had the opportunity to stand up and say no. and i never saw one of them do it. that's how they -- until they had an opportunity to talk to the press anonymously. >> congressman, maybe my question plays on what you just said. in the back there, there's a sign that says big government sucks. and we heard a number of previous speakers say some variant of big government sucks. but the fact remains, i think if you look at this country's history, the war is the help of the state. if we're going to go to war, you can't run a war on the basis of big government sucks. wars mean higher taxes, they mean larger debts, they mean more government power, and they mean more -- less freedom for individuals. it's just part of the way we

deal with emergencies when wars happen. i think that's something that maybe this program needs to think about. mr. hoekstra: yeah. ok. >> congressman, i'm jack graham from fort collins. i've heard many people talk about the fact that we're not just talking about a military war, we're also fighting an ideology and ism, radical islam exterrorism, sort of like with world war ii, nazism, imperialism, stalinism. do you agree with that and if you do how do we fight it mr. hoekstra: absolutely. i just got a -- just this morning, someone asked about act for america and she gives a wonderful answer. it is an ideological war as well as a military war. her answer is something like, she does it much better than i d, yes. the question is, aren't most muslims peace loving? yeah, most germans were peace

loving and they -- we still ended up fighting a war that cost millions of lives. many people in -- most people in russia are peace-loving and they still went through a process where they killed 20 million people. most japanese are peace love bug they went through a killing swath across much of asia. so yeah, we have to fight the deology. a protestant from west michigan can't fight the ideological war. i'm reading about interfaith dialogue with christians, muslims, and jews and these types of things and it's like, yes, that's good. ok. you know what they ought to be talking about? let's have this dialogue, let's go help the christians and the jews and the other religious minorities in the middle east. that's the issue right now. it's not about whether you can put a mosque on this corner, but

go help us save the yazidis in iraq today. help us save the chadeans in iraq today. make an impact. that's the fight they need to be having. that's what the interfaith alliance needs to be talking about and the dialogue is how do we save the lives of these people being butchered and massacred and crucified all across the middle east. all right. and -- [applause] to peace-loving muslims need fight and need to be the tip of -- spear to take this to the and fight this ideology within their religion. >> time for me to be the bad guy. last question. >> i wanted to ask you to do something. i imagine, which might be tough for you but i imagine a lot of us are going to leave here going, what the heck is going through the mind of barack obama

as president of the united states? i'm going to ask you to do something, congressman that might be tough. channel him if you don't mind and tell us what you're thinking. mr. hoekstra: i think -- only by watching what he's doing, ok, and i can't, you know, does he love america? i'm not going to get into that. he fundamentally believed that engaging with other -- with the folks that quote-unquote were enemies of the united states that because he was president, they would see us differently and they would change their behavior. ok. and no, they did not give up their self-interest. the muslim brotherhood wants to destroy us today as much as they did eight or nine years ago or 20 years ago or 80 years ago. they want to establish the caliphate. by engaging with them, we provided them an opening to make

more progress in the last eight years than they've made in the 50 years before that. ok? engaging this president wanted to deal with iran the day he went into office. and we got a deal with iran. it doesn't tell you about the quality of the deal. but we got a deal. and i think we're going to regret that agreement. and they didn't change one -- the f and we got a deal with iran. it does not tell you about the quality of the deal, but we got one. i think we will regret that agreement. they have a deal, and they did not change their behavior. they do not pay repressions to the victims of their terrorist they do not pay repressions to the victims of their terrorist attack. $150 billion, some which will fund terrorist attacks against israel, the u.s., and our friends throughout middle east. they're not changing the behavior. it's not this -- now this engagement with cuba. what are the headlines about this? "in the face of obama going to cuba, a crackdown on dissidents."

he may give them gitmo. this is why i argue for experience, especially in foreign policy. this is really really hard. his president went into it not easily, believing that we change our behavior, they will change theirs. what we found is that we changed our behavior dramatically. in almost all these cases, we asked for no change in behavior and we didn't get it. i appreciate you giving me the time to be here and sharing thoughts with you. i will be here for the rest of he conference. i will be around for questions, and you can take a shot at me later.

thank you very much. thanks for all the good work you do. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] >> vice president joe biden says president barack obama did his duty during a time in a divided government and nominated a moderate to the supreme court. he says now it's time for the senate to do its part and consider the nomination. >> it's frankly ridiculous. there is no biden rule. it doesn't exist. there's only one rule i ever followed. on the judiciary committee. that was the constitution's clear rule of advice and consent. article ii of the constitution clearly states, whenever there is a vacancy in one of the courts created by the constitution itself, the

supreme court of the united states, the president shall, not may, the president shall appoint someone to fill the vacancy with the advice and consent of the united states senate. and advice and consent includes consulting and voting. nobody is suggesting individual senators have to vote yes on any particular presidential nominee. voting no is always an option and it is their option. but saying nothing, saying nothing, reading nothing, hearing nothing and deciding in advance simply to turn your back before the president even names a nominee is not an option the constitution leaves open.

it's a plane abdication of the senate's solemn constitutional duty. it's an abdication, quite frankly, that has never ccurred before in our history. now, i'm able to square their unprecedented conduct with the constitution, my friend, mitch mcconnell and the chairman of the committee, he is my friend, the senator from iowa, senator grassley, they're now trying another tact. they ask, what's the difference , what difference does it make, if a court has eight or nine members? [laughter] i'm serious. remember they said they weren't going to fill any vacancies on the circuit court of appeals for the district for four years. remember that's what they said? that's not a constitutionally

created court. the supreme court is. >> the vice president spoke today to students at georgetown law school. you can see his comments on the u.s. supreme court vacancy tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. and tomorrow night at 8:00, we'll play the supreme court oral argument this week in the case challenging the health care laws contraception coverage mandate. an order of nuns is challenging the law on religious grounds. a joint hearing of two house oversight subcommittees examined threats to national security occurring at the nation's borders. witnesses including the acting chief of the u.s. border patrol, a director with a group, human rights first, and offers assistance for refugees seeking asylum. and a law professor who talks about a loophole in american immigration policy that's being exploited by some to gain asylum and remain in the u.s. this is an hour, 45 minute

mr. turner: the subcommittee on national security and the subcommittee on government operations will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. united states confronts a wide array of threats at its borders, ranging from terrorists seeking to harm the united states, to transnational criminals smuggling drugs and counterfeit goods to foreign nationals entering illegally in order to work in the united states unlawfully. america's borders and ports are busy places, every year tens of millions of cargo containers and hundreds of millions of lawful travelers enter the country. while tens of thousands of illegal cargo entries are seized and hundreds of thousands of unauthorized migrants are arrested or denied entry. at the same time hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants evade detection to enter the united states unlawfully and thousands of kilograms of illegal drugs and other contraband are smuggled into the country. recent terrorist attacks in the united states and europe and worldwide have highlighted the national security challenges

that we face. november terrorist attacks in paris transformed europe's migration crisis into a security debate, spurring calls for european nations to reevaluate their open borders policies. yesterday's terrorist attacks in brussels demonstrate the strength of the islamic state but also highlight the policies of european nations that have facilitated the establishment and growth of islamist communities within these countries that are parallel to, rather than integrated in, western society. concerns about borders are not limited to europe. recent reports state that the u.s. customs and border protection has apprehended several members of known islamist terrorist organizations crossing the southern border in recent years. the texas department of public safety has reported that border security agencies have arrested several somali immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members of al-shabab, the terrorist group that launched the deadly attack on the westgate shopping mall in kenya, as well as other

somali-based groups, including one funded by saddam hussein. the texas d.p.s. stated that it had come into contact in recent years with, quote, special interest aliens, who come from countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist groups thrive. in all, immigrants from over 30 countries throughout asia and the middle east have been arrested over the past few years, trying to enter the united states illegally in the rio grande valley. and now the committee has obtained information from the customs and border patrol that confirms thousands of indians, chinese, bangladeshis andly is lankans have been app rehenleded at our borders in fiscal years 2014, 2015 and the first quarter of 2016. this data also shows individuals have sought to enter the united states illegally from afghanistan, pakistan, syria, turkey and beyond. one potential vulnerability that such individuals could attempt to exploit is our nation's generous asylum system. aliens making asylum claims after they are apprehended by

border patrol for entering illye legally are being released into the american society by the obama administration. the number of aliens making credible fear claims has increased exponentially in recent years. quoting information provided to the committee by uscis, the number of credible fear claims increased from 4,995 in fiscal fiscal 8 to 51,001 in year 2014, an increase of 921%. additionally, d.h.s. is approving those claims the vast majority of the time. in fact, the approval rate is 87%. by claiming to have a credible fear, these aliens set in process forestalling of their removal. dangerous individuals such as gang members, cartel operatives and even supporters and members of terrorist groups could exploit this system. such individuals could attempt to enter illegally, if they

successfully evade the border patrol, they can remain in the united states. if they get caught, they can make a credible fear claim and likely be released. during a recent visit by staff to el paso, border patrol and i.c.e. confirmed they are seeing increased numbers of bangladeshis, somalis, pakistanis and other nationals of countries of concern coming across the southern borderer and claiming credible fear. these anecdotal reports are supported by information that uscis provided the committee. that states that thousands of nationals have claimed credible fear in recent years. for these reasons, texas d.p.s. has stated that, quote, an unsecure border with mexico is the state's most significant vulnerability as it provides criminals and would-be terrorists from around the world a reliable means to enter texas and the nation undetected. this is especially concerning today in light of the recent terrorist attacks and schemes around the world. end quote. i thank our witnesses for their testimony today and look forward to examining issues related to national security

threats at our border, and what could be done to combat this growing problem. i now recognize mr. lynch, the ranking member of the subcommittee on national security, for his opening statement. mr. lynch: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i also want to thank the panelists for helping the committee with its work. i'd like to also thank chairman meadows and ranking member connolly for holding this hearing as well. to examine immigration and border security. i'd also like to thank our witnesses again for your expertise in this area. as reported by the united nations high commission for refugees, we're witnessing the largest global force displacement of people since world war ii. conflict, persecution, violence and flagrant human rights violations have forcibly displaced nearly 60 million people worldwide, including 19.5 million refugees, 38 million internally displaced persons at 1.8 million asylum seekers. that's a 60% increase from 37.5 million displaced people

recorded by unhcr a decade ago. over 50% of the refugee population is now made up of children below 18 years of age. marking the highest child refugee figure in more than 10 years. in 2014, over 34,000 asylum applications were submitted by unaccompanied or separated children across 82 countries. that's the highest count on record since the agency began collecting this data in 2006. the war in syria and the rise of the islamic state have been the driving factors behind the unprecedented surge in global displacement. approximately 7.6 million people have been internally displaced within syria alone. and more than four million refugees have fled the country since the start of the conflict in 2011. the stark increase in global force displacement coupled with devastating terrorist attacks in paris, san bernardino, beirut, istanbul and ankara in turkey, and just yesterday, brussels, belgium, have led to ongoing policy debates in the

u.s. over how best to prevent terrorists from infiltrating our legitimate immigration processes. this is a critical and necessary examination that must entail fact-based oversight of our existing immigration and border security policies across the board. in the interest of national security, must also be undertaken in a manner that continues to reflect our long standing international commitment as a signatory to the 1951 geneva convention. to protecting highly vulnerable individuals who are fleeing from persecution and violence, and as stated in a recent letter to congress signed by 22 u.s. national security leaders from democratic and republican administrations alike, and quote, we believe that america can and should continue to provide refuge to those fleeing violence and persecution without compromising the security and safety of our nation. to do otherwise would undermine our core objective of combating terrorism, closed quote. these leaders included general david petraeus, the former commander of u.s. central

command, the former secretary of state under president eagan, and former nato supreme ally commander, james, who is now at a university. in furtherance of this committee's efforts to review our national security framework, congressman steve russell of this committee and i recently traveled on an oversight mission to turkey, jordan and lebanon to assess and even participate in the vetting process required for syrian refugee settlement to the united states. after visiting refugee camps along the borders and meeting with various refugee families, we discovered that the vast majority, between 70% and 80%, are not even interested in resettlement at all. rather they seek to stay in the neighboring host countries, turkey, lebanon, and jordan, in the hopes of returning home. the overwhelming preference of these families is to stay close to syria, indicated that one of our primary national security goals should be to ensure that financially strained host

countries and international humanitarian agencies have the resources necessary to provide a dignified life for their refugee populations in place. regarding the vetting process itself, i must say that prior to our oversight visit, i had my serious doubts about the effectiveness of vetting conducted and virtual war zone environments and i supported both the republican and democratic measures to enhance the vetting process. i would note that the delegation arrived in beirut only several months after a double suicide bombing in that city that killed over 40 people. we arrived in istanbul only four days after a suicide bombing in central square that killed 10 german tourists and we left a province only one day before a rocket attack fired from syria hit a school. however, for the small percent and of families who do seek resettlement to the united states, what we found in our oversight of vetting centers in all three host countries was a multilayered vetting process that is robust and extensive.

it is conducted by specialized u.n. and u.s. agency personnel trained to ensure that only the most thoroughly vetted and the most vulnerable, or 1% of syrian refugee applicants, are admitted for resettlement. they're also very cautious in their work. knowing it could pose a grave danger to the american public and also effectively halt resettlement for millions of legitimate refugees. it is this type of fact-based oversight that should guide our review of this immigration and border patrol procedures across the board. this is absolutely imperative at a time when our federal agencies responsible for securing the homeland security, to face budgetary constrains, every homeland security dollar must be allocated toward the most critical national security risks. i thank you again for holding this hearing and i look forward to discussing these issues with our witnesses. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. desantis: i thank the gentleman. i now recognize mr. meadows for his opening statement.

mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership. and thank you, ranking member, mr. lynch, for your -- not only fact-based willingness to look at the record, but also your willingness to work in a bipartisan manner to address this serious issue. from the surge of unaccompanied minors and family units from central america coming across our border to the ongoing syrian refugee crisis, as well as the fiance visa that was erroneously issued to the san bernardino terrorist, there seems to be no shortage of immigration issues that impact our national security. today's hearing takes a closer look at the national security implications at our nation's borders. it is a national security interest that brings us here today, there are plenty of other rhetoric and discussion that can go on as it relates to

immigration, immigration policy. but indeed this is, looking at not only immigration, but border security, and how it affects national security. it's been at the forefront of much of the political discussion in recent months. the department of homeland security officials have often indicated to the american public that our borders are more secure today than it's ever been. i think many of us have heard that. they tout the low number of apprehensions as proof, which seems to be a little bit counterintuitive to me. in fact, the g.a.o., the government accountability office, has indicated that the d.h.s. has no official metrics in place to measure whether our border is secure or not. those statements are very difficult to comprehend if there are no matrix in place. representatives from the border patrol tell us that the

situation at the border is exactly the opposite of what the administration claims. undoubtedly the united states has a proud history of providing refuge to victims of persecution and we'll continue to be unwavering in our commitment to be that beacon of freedom and hope for those facing persecution around the world. but when this administration fails to enforce our immigration laws or turn a blind eye to the rampant fraud nd abuse while rubber stamping credible fear claims, at a rate as high as 92%, the integrity of our system is ndermined. our generosity is taken advantage of. and our national security is at risk. we should seek to protect the integrity of our immigration system from fraudulent claims made by those seeking to do us harm or subvert our rule of law. individuals who seek to defraud

the asylum process make a mockery of those who are truly persecuted, for those who are leeing for fear. the united states is one of the most generous nations in the world and our asylum system is an extension of that generosity, yet various organizations are coaching people to claim credible fear in order to avoid deportation. by invoking the credible fear claim, most aliens enter into a process by which they await proceedings before the immigration judge, which at the very least buys them more time in the united states. it often takes years, multiple years, before those court dates take place. in the meantime, the alien is allowed to obtain a work permit, go about their business in the united states, and indeed could imbed in our communities.

it seems to me that the word is out that claiming credible fear is the way to go. that the numbers sure say that much to me and as we look at the credible fear claims that have grown exponentially in recent years, as chairman desantis mentioned in his opening remarks, one of my biggest concerns is that nefarious actors have taken advantage of our generosity. gang members, cartel operators, supporters of terrorist groups can game the system and make use of credible fear to remain here in the united states. even according to d.h.s., aliens with known or claimed ties to cartels and terrorist groups have been apprehended along the border claiming credible fear. the data that this committee has received confirms that the border patrol is encountering migrants from afghanistan, bangladesh, egypt, iran, iraq,

lebanon, pakistan, saudi arabia, somalia and turkey. now, this is coming across our southern border. and these are just the individuals that were apprehended. so what about all of those that were never seen by law enforcement at all and make it into the interior of our country? i hope to hear from our witnesses today on their assessment of the current holes that might enable these bad actors to take advantage of our system. most importantly, i'd like to hear what should be done to address these deficiencies and help ensure the safety of the american public. mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the record. one would be a u.s. border patrol nationwide apprehensions for 2015 and 2016. the other is the uscis credible fear nationality reports for fiscal year 2014, 2015 and 2016.

for quarter one of 2016. nd the uscis credible fear data and affirmative asylum case data. i ask unanimous consent. mr. desantis: without objection. mr. meadows: with that i would yield back, mr. chairman, thank you. mr. desantis: thank you. i'll hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. i'm pleased to welcome mr. itiello. mr. mccraw, director of the texas department of public safety. mr. judd, president of the national border patrol council. professor ting, professor at the temple university beasley school of law. and ms. acer, senior director of refugee protection at human rights first. welcome all. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. you can please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear the

testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you, please be seated. all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, please limit your oral testimony to five minutes. your entire written statement will be made part of the record. mr. vitiello, you're up. five minutes. mr. vitiello: thank you, chairman desantis, chairman meadows, ranking member lynch, and distinguished members of the subcommittees. it's an honor to appear before you today to discuss the role of the united states border patrol. in protecting national security and defending threats against our border. during my law enforcement career of more than 30 years in the u.s. border patrol, the border environment has changed not only the intentions, tactics and capabilities of our adversaries, but also in our resources, our capabilities and our operational approach to securing the border. today we focus not only on responding to the complex and

rapidly changing border conditions, but we also work to decrease the risk and potential threats. we do this through strategic and risk-based deployment of resources, and by expanding and increasing our capabilities through intelligence, information sharing, partnerships and operational collaboration. in all border environments, land, air and sea, technology is critical to security operations. effective fixed and mobile surveillance and detection systems provide increased situational awareness of illicit cross-border activity, advanced technology also increases our ability to identify changes in the border environment. and rapidly respond as appropriate to emerging threats, along and approaching our borders. detecting and interdicting terrorists and their weapons will always be a focused priority of the border security mission. also the illegal cross-border activities of transnational criminal organizations involving cross-border trafficking of guns, currency, human smuggling and drugs pose a continuous threat to border security and public safety. responding to the continued

flow of unaccompanied alien children and families across the southwest border is also a priority. the border regions of the united states are most secure when using a whole of government approach that leverages interagency and international partnerships as a force multiplier. the border patrol is an active participant in the d.h.s. southern border and approaches campaign and has a leading role in the joint task force west, an integrated operational approach to addressing the threat of transnational criminal organizations along and approaching the southwest border. this separate directs d.h.s. resources in a much more collaborative fashion to address the broad and complex range of threats and challenges including illegal migration, smuggling of illegal drugs, humans and armed trafficking, illicit financing of such operations and the threat of terrorist exploitation and of border vulnerabilities. the creation of the task forces increases information sharing between federal, state, local and international law enforcement agencies, improves situational awareness, enhances

border-wide interdiction operations, and improves our ability to counter transnational threats and associated violence. using the risk-based and intelligence-driven approach, the border patrol and more broadly c.b.p. and d.h.s. will continue to enhance our efforts, anticipate and respond to threats to national security, and ensure the safety of the u.s. public. the continued focus on unity of effort in conjunction with intelligence and operational integration, the deployment of advanced technology, enhances our situational awareness, better enables us to effectively and efficiently detect, respond to and disrupt threats in the nation's border regions, and approaches to secure the homeland. in closing, let me state the obvious. it is the men and women of c.b.p. and the border patrol agents who face the threats that we will discuss today. agents deploy in all manner of weather and rough terrain 24/7/365. i'm blessed to be in their leadership cadre, i'm

grateful for their dedication and professionalism. the nation is safer and the communities they serve are better protected because of their efforts. they have my unwavering support and continued effort to let them do their jobs in the safest manner possible. thank you for having me as a witness today. i look forward to the opportunity to testify and your questions. mr. desantis: thank you. mr. mccraw, five minutes. mr. crawford: yes, sir, steve mccraw. mr. mccraw: yes, sir, steve mccraw. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i want to echo a few comments that the chief made. but i would be remiss of two things. i didn't, first, mention the governor's comments yesterday. on the aftermath of the brussels attack, the cowardly attack by terrorists. he pointed out that our hearts and prayers are with the brussels victims. our minds must realize the consequences of open borders.

and a resolve must be security. clearly the governor and the texas state legislatures understand that this scope and magnitude of the threat and vulnerability to texas and the rest of the nation. what happens on the texas-mexico border doesn't just affect texas or even just the border region. it affects the entire nation. whether it's transnational crime or a national security threat. clearly, special interest aliens are a problem. we've recognized that, this is not a new phenomenon. as the f.b.i. special agent in charge in 2002, we learned that we were -- border patrol was detecting, detaining, apprehending individuals from countries with known al qaeda presence at that point in time. it's continued on. it's understandable why texans are concerned from a national security standpoint. to that point, you know, we've seen the -- talked about changes that we've seen over the years and the chief referred to. crime is remarkably different. it's more transitory. it's transnational. it's organized. it's more discrete. certainly it can compromise and undermine public safety and homeland security.

and national security. from a texas standpoint, it's been very clear in terms from the governor and our state legislature that two things in terms of guiding principles. sense of urgency and unity of effort. unfortunately with the chief over here, i know when he was the sector chief of rio grande valley, border patrol, he was a team player. and we were able to do unity of effort and work closely with them. i can tell you right now that the properly resourced, they have the leadership and the type of people, they can get b done to secure the texas-mexico border. that's important. until that time, our strategic intent by our legislature, our governor, is that the texas department of public safety, working with our local and other state partners, included texas forces or game wardens, will provide direct support to border patrol and the detection, deterrence and nterdiction of smuggling events that occur between the ports of entry. and do so very aggressively. every day we deploy texas state

troopers, texas rangers, and special agents in the department of public safety, from around the state, down to the rio grande valley, where right now, as the epicenter of drug and human smuggling into the united states, and will continue to do so. it's been our direction, until the border is secure. there's a number of things that certainly can be done. if properly resourced. there's no doubt that border patrol can get the job done. we look forward to that day when they do have the resources to be able to do that. that concludes my comments to this point. mr. desantis: thank you. r. judd, five minutes. mr. judd: i appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 1,65 -- 16,500 border patrol agents which i represent. i want to stick to my comments on the national security threat of the border. leave out the rhetoric and what might have let to it. -- have led to it. but what i will tell is you that the obama administration and c.b.p. commissioner have repeatedly told the american public that the border is more secure today than it has before been.

as a border patrol agent, i will tell you the exact opposite. the commissioner and the administration have pointed to a decrease in arrests over the past several years, but they failed to give the american public key indicators such as the number of arrests of persons from countries with known terrorist ties or from countries that compete economically with our interests. in all of fiscal year 2015, the united states border patrol arrested five persons from afghanistan, 57 from pakistan, and 1,327 from the people's republic of china. already in the first five months of this fiscal year, the united states border patrol has arrested 18 from afghanistan. first quarter, five all of last year, first quarter. 18 from afghanistan. 79 from pakistan. ll of 2015 again was 18. 619 from the people's republic of china. those numbers should alarm everyone. and we are seeing a similar trend from other key countries like albania, bangladesh and brazil.

if the single factor for the litmus test is lower numbers, then compared to fiscal year 2015, one must cclude we are failing. as someone who has been involved in border protection for over 18 years, i can unequivocally tell you the border is not secure and the situation is getting worse instead of better. arrests are not the only factor in determining whether the border is secure. we have to look at the totality of the situation such as violence. the number of persons evading arrest and whether organized crime continues to turn a profit. in the context of the times we must also look at whether personals from countries who would do us harm are able to exploit our weaknesses through our policies or the lack of man power on the border. it is well documented that criminal cartels control the border in the same way inmates control most prison facilities. the cartels are extremely well organized, pathologically violent and have an entire infrastructure on both sides of the border. in mexico it is estimated that over 150,000 people have been killed in cartel-related violence. they've killed police officers, judges, elected officials and

ordinary civilians who have crossed their path. and this is the opponent, border patrol agents face daily. this is an opponent that controls all aspects of border crimes, including narcotics and illegal immigrant smuggling. one key way to determine whether the cartels are win -- winning is to analyze key data of entries to arrest, two weeks ago i was visiting a station in a border patrol sector. during that week that i was there, i was there one day, but during that week in which i was there, a total of 157 known entries came into the united states through that station's area of responsibility. of those 157, 74 were arrested, 54 were known to have evaded arrest. and furthered their entry into the united states. 17 were able to evade arrest and make it back to mexico and 12 were still outstanding and unaccounted for. that's a 47 arrest rate. that's not very good.

it's not the border patrol agent's fault. we're just simply overmanned. we don't have the resources that are necessary. in fact, yesterday i received an email from an agent in arizona and that email said that there was a 10-mile stretch for two days, and this is documented on the reports, from the border patrol management, 10-mile stretch of border that was unmanned for two whole days. criminal cartels were able to go to the fence, cut a hole in the fence, drive two vehicles through that hole, and escape. they were able to then put the fence back up and try to hide the cuts that they had made. border patrol agents were able to go down and seat vehicle tracks. there was actually a camera hat did catch the two vehicles on the border. they didn't see the vehicle drive through the border, but the tracks clearly indicate that it was. there was no other vehicles coming from east. so it had to have been those

two vehicles that had crossed the border. the scariest part of those vehicles entering into the united states is we don't know what was in those vehicles. we have no idea. of those persons who were able to evade arrests, those 54 and the 12 outstanding we don't know where they were from. it's unfortunate that we're currently in this situation. in which it appears that we invite what we're currently experiencing. and because we're overmanned and it's not that they didn't want to man the border in these two areas in arizona, that this vehicle drove through, they just didn't have the man power to do it. and that's the unfortunate situation today. i look forward to answering any and all of your questions. thank you very much. mr. desantis: thank you. professor ting, five minutes. mr. ting: i share the comments of my co-panelists. but a thanks to the two subcommittee chairmen and all the members for inviting us here today.

i also share the concern over the statistical information that the members, particularly mr. meadows, have referred to. and i share the concern that mr. judd has just expressed about the situation at our border. i want to talk about two issues in particular. expedited removal and credible fear. that i think bear on the concern that many of us here share. prior to 1996, we had no expedited removal. and arriving aliens in the united states could basically stay for a long time by making an asylum claim. there was an enormous backlog. they were put in line and released on their own recognizance. there was also a "60 minutes" piece where people showed people were landing at kennedy airport every single day without documentation and being released into the general population. and that i think pushed congress to enact expedited removal which turns arriving

aliens around who lack any documentation and the problem is, as i discuss in my written comments, in one of the classic bipartisan compromises for which congress is alternately praised and condemned, congress enacted expedited removal in a way that provides that if the, first of all, they did two things. first of all, they determined that the first interview within a credible fear interview. in the end, even though they tried to take the immigration judges out, as i discussed in my written comments, the immigration judges got back into the process anyway, so while it looks good on its face, expedited removal in practice hasn't worked out very well. even though it has been expanded, not just to arriving aliens, but within 100 miles of

the border. so it's potentially a useful tool but it's hobbled by this credible fear determination and by the ultimate right to delay removal by an appeal to an immigration judge. so there are two problems. i talked in my written comments about credible fear and where did credible fear come from? i have some knowledge about that because in 1991, in the midst of the haitian migrant crisis, we were trying to kind of in a chaotic situation manage that flow and provide asylum interviews for people. it was very difficult. and in fact we started perating the detention facilities at guantanamo in an effort to cope with that migrant crisis. and we, the immigration and naturalization service,

invented credible fear kind of on the fly. as a way of screening out people who obviously were not entitled to a asylum. if people couldn't even come up ith a story, we determined that they could be turned around immediately and returned to haiti without a full-blown asylum interview. on the other hand, for those people who could articulate a coherent story, that seemed credible, they would be allowed to advance to a full blown asylum interview, recognizing there was a backlog for that and it would slow the process down, but for those people, they would get the full asylum interview. as it turns out, that credible fear practice was very short lived. because the numbers were so enormous that president bush, george h.w. bush, determined that we couldn't continue processing migrants from haiti and he determined that they would all be returned to haiti without any processing at

all. obviously that was challenged by many advocates, it went all the way to the supreme court of the united states. and the supreme court of the united states in an 8-1 decision in a case called sale vs. united states, the supreme court of the united states held that that was fine. that the united states had no obligation under its own laws or under international law to conduct asylum interviews on the high seas. so credible fear was a temporary measure, there probably wasn't even necessary in the end. it only lasted for a few months and i was startled to see credible fear appear in the statute of the united states. as part of our expedited removal process. when expedited removal came in, credible fear shows up in the statute. where does that come from? while it was invented as a device to screen out migrants,

as has been commented on, it's being used now as a device to screen people in. so they don't have to actually prove their asylum claims. all they have to do is state credible fear. and they're basically in, they join the queue for an immigration judge so they can make their asylum claim in removal proceedings and we know that can sometimes take a long time. and the word is out. this is how you do it. you make a good credible fear claim and you're in. in this age of modern communications, that word spreads, that word spreads quickly. i'm very concerned about that and i have a number of proposals. i'm over time already. but i do want to say i think we need to train more asylum officers and our immigration officers, including border patrol agents and asylum, and we ought to have them do asylum interviews. i think we ought to, as i proposed in my written comment, remove credible fear from the statute.

it doesn't belong there. we should go straight to an asylum interview and we ought to have enough asylum officers, including trained border patrol agents, and other customs and border patrol officers to do that. i have other recommendations and i refer you to my written comments. thank you. mr. desantis: thank you. ms. acer, you're up for five minutes. ms. acer: thank you so much. chairman desantis, chairman meadows, ranking member lynch and members of the subcommittee. it's an honor to be here today to offer our views regarding national security at our borders and the importance of the u.s. commitment to protect refugees. the horrific terrorist attacks in brussels yesterday are yet another reminder of the terrible harms that terrorists are inflicting on innocent civilians around the world. human rights first is a nonprofit organization with offices in texas, new york and washington, d.c. we operate one of the largest pro bono legal representations programs for asylum seekers in the country, working in partnership with lawyers from

some of the nation's leading law firms. the united states can and must protect its national security and can and must do so while also complying with its human rights and refugee protection commitments. as made clear in the letter from leading national security experts of both parties, referenced earlier by ranking member lynch. both at the formal points of entry, as well as at our land borders, c.b.p. has extensive tools and databases to identify individuals who present a risk to national security. including databases that contain information from various u.s. agencies and foreign sources. for cases that enter the process through credible fear as well, d.h.s. asylum officers also conduct a range of vetting and checks. before an individual can be granted asylum, they have to be either interviewed by an asylum officer or through an immigration court hearing. only a very small portion of the world's refugees seek

protection here in the united states. the increase in central american claims from the northern triangle, including children and families, have not only affected the united states, the u.n. refugee agency has reported that the countries of mexico, belize, costa rica, nicaragua and an ma have seen the number of asylum applications grow to nearly 13 times what it was in 2008. while a very small portion of asylum seekers also come from outside the hemisphere, many of those small numbers come from top refugee hosting states, as well as from china. u.s. leadership in protecting refugees is not only a reflection of american ideals, it also advances u.s. national security and foreign policy interests. earlier this year, i too visited jordan, lebanon and turkey, to assess the syrian refugee crisis. the critical infrastructures of front line refugee hosting states are under severe pressure and, as ryan corker,

former u.s. ambassador has explained, u.s. efforts to share in hosting some syrian refugees affirmatively advance u.s. national security interests by helping to protect the stability of a region that is home to some key u.s. allies. our policies and practices, as well as in public rhetoric, the critical to distinguish between the victims of terror and repression on one hand, and the perpetrators of horrific acts on the other. as a number of leading u.s. national security experts have described, efforts to bar syrian refugees, for example, are counterproductive from a national security perspective, as they actually help the isil narrative. former d.h.s. secretary has cautioned that you don't want to play into the narrative of the bad guy. that's giving propaganda to the enemy. a strong asylum and immigration system that adjudicates the immigration removal cases forward in a timely and fair manner, is essential. both for ensuring the integrity of the u.s. immigration

process, as well as for protecting refugees from returning to places of persecution. yet over 480,000 immigration court removal cases have now been pending for an average of 667 days in the u.s. immigration courts. with projected average wait times around three years. we urge congress to support the addition of immigration judges and additional support staff to address this backlog. finally, the current asylum system is actually failing to provide protection in a manner consistent with this country's commitments. over the years so many barriers and hurdles and technical complexities have been added to the asylum system that refugees who seek the protection. -- protection of the united states often find themselves denied asylum, delayed in receiving protection, or in many cases that we see from our work day in and day out, lingering for months in jails and jail-like immigration detention facilities. in our experience, the expedited removal system and the credible fear process,

which i think has a 78% pass rate now, is actually preventing many legitimate refugees from even applying for asylum. i'm happy to answer questions about this. many cannot navigate this increasingly complicated system without legal counsel and many go unrepresented because they cannot afford that. in my testimony, i have outlined a number of additional recommendations and i'm happy to talk about those. thank you so much for the opportunity. mr. desantis: thank you. chair now recognizes himself for five minutes. mr. mccraw, your agency issued a report saying that several somali immigrants crossing the border who are known members of al-shabab have been apprehended. as well as other terrorist groups. can you describe the aliens of special interest you've seen coming across the borderer? the threat posed and how texas is dealing with that population? mr. mccraw: as previously testified by others here, clearly there are special interest aliens from afghanistan to yemen that have been coming across the

texas-mexico border, that have been apprehended. that's a fact. it's an f.b.i. case, it was prosecuted. open source information regarding the support and a somalian smuggling operation out of san antonio that would bring somalians across and help them resettle across the united states. there has been a nexus determined in that investigation to terrorism. we're mindful of that. we're also mindful of other aspects in terms of it. until we get a handle on our borders, until we're secure between our ports of entry and no one is able to cross between the ports undetected, there's no way to tell the scope and magnitude of the problem that exists right now. and there's no excuse not to secure the border. it can be done with the proper resources applied and border patrol given those resources, it can be done. until that time, you know, texas has made it very clear, the governor and the state legislature want to spend

whatever it takes to support border patrol to get it done because it's too important to texas. mr. desantis: mr. judd, c.b.p. will often say that since apprehensions are down, the border is more secure, how does that number account for those who the border patrol doesn't ever see? mr. judd: it doesn't. as i previously stated, those drive-throughs, because the agents, there were no agents assigned in that area in which the drive-through took place, if it wasn't for a camera that saw the vehicles, we wouldn't have even known that those vehicles are crossed. if we don't have the resources to assign to a specific area, then we don't know what's crossing that area. i would like to correct myself. i look back at my notes. it wasn't two days that that area was open. it was open for a long stretch of period of time. i don't know exactly how long. i know that it was at least one shift and more than that. just wanted to correct that. mr. desantis: we've received reports from border patrol agents reporting lower apprehension numbers are often rewarded and that apprehensions when they fall between

jurisdictions of different offices within a sector, those apprehensions are simply not counted. have you heard similar reports suggesting that c.b.p. might be fudging the apprehension data? mr. judd: not only have i heard similar reports, i've seen it. i've seen, when i was assigned to the intel office at one of the border patrol stations, which i worked, there was a note that came across the desk from a watch commander, a high ranking manager, that said, you must remove these numbers from the gotaway report because there's no entry point and therefore if there's no entry point, then we can't say where it entered and therefore we can't reconcile the numbers. the question was, the question that was posed to this watch commander was, well, we know they got away, where are we going to report they got away? he said, if there's no entry point, there were no gotaways. we said, but we have the evidence that they got away. they said, nope, there's none, remove it. and we were forced to remove it. mr. desantis: i hear some of the witnesses talking about resources. i agree, resources are an issue.

but isn't our functional policy basically catch and release at this point? in other words, you can have beefed up border patrol, but if people know that if they just get across the border they're most likely going to be given a citation, be released and then they come back in a year or whatever, to me that's still going to be a major incentive for people to come illegally, am i wrong? mr. judd: the resources are important and in part, in part you're correct, in part you're wrong. let's say, for instance, the del rio sector. the del rio sector does not necessarily release a whole lot of illegal aliens because they have immigration and customs enforcement, they have the bed space to hold onto these people, so the main determining factor is, do we have the space to hold on to these individuals? if we do have the space to hold onto them, then immigration and customs enforcement do hold onto them. if we don't have the space for them, then we release them. that's where the resources come into play. mr. desantis: professor ting, c.b.p. has confirmed that

aliens from special interest countries are being apprehended by border patrol. uscis has confirmed aliens claiming credible fear have been subject to terrorism bars in the i.n.a. do you think the administration's policies regarding aliens who arrive at the border could encourage more nefarious actors to attempt to enter the united states illegally along the southwest border? mr. ting: i think it's reasonable to assume that the nefarious actors you're referring to are constantly looking for ways to gain entry to the united states. as i said earlier, in the age of instantaneous communications, the flaws in our border security system are known instantaneously. and are carried in the media. and i think it's a legitimate concern and i applaud the committee here for taking an interest in this subject. mr. desantis: once that word gets out, basically if you're somebody that wants to do the united states harm, you can come to the border, claim

credible fear, you'll likely be released, receive a work permit, and then you'll have a court date in a couple years? mr. ting: yeah. in the olden days, what used to happen, i believe, is that if people came to the border and wanted to make an asylum claim, we told them, fine. we'll schedule you for an appointment, come back to the border, but we're not going to admit you. there is still a code section, 235-b-2-c in the immigration and nationality act, which authorizes the return of arriving aliens to contiguous territory from which they arrived. so there's statutory authority for turning people around at the border if we wanted to exercise it as we used to, once upon a time. mr. desantis: do you think if we moved away from some of these loopholes, moved away from a more catch and release posture, i mean, obviously people that would come could be apprehended, but then wouldn't that be a deterrent for other people, to realize that's

probably not the best use of my time and money to try to go across the southern border if they think that there's a probable probability that the law's going to be enforced? mr. ting: yes, absolutely. i think it would help to have an administration that is really serious about defending the border and enforcing the laws enacted by congress. but i also think there are things congress can do. to tighten up the laws, take credible fear out, requiring asylum officer training for more immigration officers, so asylum officers are available in larger numbers. so we can do processing on the border. as i mentioned, turning around people at the border and saying, you want to make a claim, come back when we were time to interview you. and we'll interview you. there's statutory authority for that already. mr. desantis: great. my time has expire. i recognize mr. lynch for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you very much. i really appreciate your opening "new york times" statements of testimony. i want to drill down, i don't want to spend a lot of time on. this let's talk about the credible fear standard.

as i read the 1951 geneva convention for refugees, it says, it says, well founded fear. that's the standard. well founded fear. when i see this standard, you know, you're talking about credible fear. when you go to websters or a dictionary, well founded is credible. credible is well founded. i don't understand what the dickering is all about. isn't it really the same standard as the geneva onvention? mr. judd: the geneva convention established what has become the international standard for asylum or -- mr. lynch: just the fear. mr. ting: a well founded fear of persecution, on account of one of five specific reasons. so, first of all, what is persecution? right? and what is race, religion, nationality, social group and political opinion?

there's a whole body of law that's developed around that standard in the united states and internationally. mr. lynch: we're talk about the fear that that person has -- mr. ting: credible fear was something that was, as i suggest, made up on the fly for administrative convenience. mr. lynch: it seems very close to the geneva convention standard, though. when you look it up, you know, websters dictionary, credible versus well founded. it's not totally made up. if it means exactly the same thing. i know in application it's different. i'm not questioning that. all i can say is, for everyone on the ground who is dealing with that issue at the time, credible fear was a clearly different -- ms. acer: i want to also caution that the united states has to not only have obligations under the international refugee convention, but we also have to think about the example we set to other states. if we are to start turning away people at our border, who apply for asylum, what message does

that send to jordan, to lebanon? mr. lynch: can we talk about my question, though? ms. acer: in terms of the credible fear process, it was set up, the 1996 law, needs of -- instead of allowing people to actually go into immigration court removal proceedings, allowed people to be deported on the order of a c.b.p. officer essentially. in order to make sure we were complying with our obligations. the screening process was set in so that the u.s., the idea was, would not inadvertently deport someone who should have a shot at applying for sylum. many people who are legitimate refugees are not passing that process. the immigration judge review that was mentioned happens in just a couple of days. very quickly and in rare cases. mr. lynch: i have two minutes left. i want to get to this other issue. there are pull factors and push factors. we did a couple of codels. we went down to central america. we were at the airport when the

people who were -- largely mostly kids, but with few parents, when the kids arrived ack in the area. we had stopped them at the border and sent them back. the plane arrived around 11:00. by 1:00 in the afternoon, every kid had been picked up. every child had been picked up. and taken home by their families. the deal there, in talking to the immigrants, these families, that are trying to get into the united states illegally, they said the range was $7,000 to $8,000 per person, and they get three tries. they get three tries to get into the united states. so they call them coyotes. i don't like using that term because it has a romantic appeal to it. these are human traffickers. they're putting these kids at grave risk in this whole exercise here.

what i'm getting at is, there's a push factor -- actually, there's a pull factor by having low standards in this country for allowing immigrants to come in. but there's also a push factor because there's an industry down there in central merica. it's much more profitable than smuggling drugs. and most of these countries don't have human trafficking laws in place down there. so they can do this and there's no real dire consequences as there would be if they were trafficking in drugs or uns. i'm asking my border patrol folks, is this the nature of the problem? what's a greater factor, the pull factor of the united states being lax, or the push factor of the industry down there that's actually pushing people up to our border? mr. vitiello: thank you, congressman. we found this our reporting that there's a it