tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 21, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
elderly, poor children, immigrants, people afflicted with drug addiction, alcoholism, people who do not have opportunity. there is ted kennedy as he is dying talking about that as the way he wanted to be remembered. now, the question is, tent kennedy is dying -- ted kennedy is dying and his legacy is all he has on his mind. he is focused. but for day to day for all of overwhelmed with the meetings, her, barack christie, emergency situations, budgets, lawyers, politics. so much of that preoccupies your every moment. you are not concerned with how you will be remembered. to openwould ask you
your mind to memory, the memory of community action. to think about community action and ink about people who sacrifice to bring community action this far. usehink about people who their time, skill, heart. to think about all of your sacrifices to make this moment, this gathering to bring all of us together. i was listening to what the minister had to say earlier and was thinking, wow, jesus said in the sermon on the mount, blessed are the merciful, the peacemakers for they will be called children of god. they will be remembered for all time. today 50 we can see that community action is on its way to being remembered for all time.
food banks, clothing the naked, jobless turning -- jobless training, disaster relief, reentry programs, emergency fuel programs, housing, aide, emergency shelters. all of this is the reality , not being done because we are in a moment near death and focused on memory but because this is the good work, the ongoing work, the everyday work, the promise of community action. this is your life. [applause] this is your life, your good work. it is why i'm so -- so thrilled to be here.
dazzling,action is dazzling. i'm telling you, what a legacy over 50 years. dr. king once said that darkness cannot drive out darkness could only light can drive out darkness, only love can drive out hate. you, the people of community .ction, you bring the light you bring the action of love to life for so many people. i just hope you hear that, you feel that in your heart. [applause] thatody once said to me when a child is born, and the child begins to have the powers of cognition, what they see in the face of their mother and father, they think they see god. they see the power of the
almighty. you stop and think -- looking back, 50 years of the date, there is billy graham, sergeant ,hriver, visiting with people and as the video showed, you present the children's birth and .he children can't imagine i think living in the property they experience, the power of a coming fromver washington, the renowned billy graham, a man of worldwide fame, they don't know people like that in their world. but they look at these men visiting from washington, they look at you and all that you do, and they see the face of someone helping and the face of god. is at its best phase that we remember the reality of today,ty action
tomorrow, and 50 years from today. presidentnking about also think about dr. king. that dr.ago this year king one the nobel peace prize. think about the reality of dr. king standing there and expressing his concern about , as welln our country as racism, as well as militarism . , a spirithe spirit that lives to this moment, if you go down a mall and see that monument to dr. king. thatee that stone of hope
came out of the mountain of despair. you think about 50 years ago and president johnson. president johnson, as you heard , launching a war on poverty. king spirit, to know the johnson spirit, is to know that there spirit is alive, alive and all of you. let me ask you for a moment to join me in an act of imagination . i want you to imagine for a men walked 2 elderly in the back door of this loudly,um, talking interrupting my speech. people in the back are starting to turn away. you think, what is going on? what is all this commotion.
the cameras start to turn. you think what is happening? --n people try to huh th hush these elderly men, they start swinging canes, very violent and and now they are walking in and out of the isles, .ushing people over what is going on here? i stopped speaking, i don't know what to do. but all of a sudden, they say to me, i am't come near dr. king," and the other guy says "i'm president johnson, don't bother me." tom says "we better get security. [laughter]
off they go to get security, but these elderly men continued to walk around here, and people are saying, ids reenactor -- are these reenactors? who are these people? what is going on? but you hear them talking and you hear this old man johnson, alivears old if he was and he looked at him and he is this wise and old man and he is talking about president kennedy 's new frontier. before kennedy was assassinated he envisioned this new frontier of an attack on poverty in america. and then you hear about programs like in the 1960's in new york, johnson talking about mobilization for youth, and new project. someone in the audience is basis ofs, that is the
community action. i gothnson is saying shriver -- sargent with his success in the peace corps to work on the war on poverty, and people say yes, i saw that tape. and you hear johnson, you hear johnson starting to mumble to staying,who says he is saying -- who says he is king, that we cannot give folks something for nothing, but i always wanted them to be able to carry their own weight by giving opportunity to stand tall. then you hear about headstart and food stamps and medicare and medicaid. to king,lking, talking and then you hear king say, "mr.
president, when i left the stage i was coming to washington myself in '68. i wanted to start a poor people's campaign. i wanted to pick up that war on poverty. i wanted to bring it to life again." then you hear johnson say "that is what i wanted. i want state and local people given the resources to innovate and to speak to people directly in a way that they can relate to them, not from any grand federal instruction. ground tople on the help people in their community, to revive people and give them some hope. "yes ministerim, johnson. you tell 'em. -- ignoreast people
these people. tell them and tell the doubters that it was your time as president that the poverty rate fell from 24% to 12%. you tell them, president johnson." turns and sits down, and johnson sits down, and wouldn't you know it, they sit down right next to you. >> -- who is going to be moderating this panel, and if you are thinking you are in the chemical facility, you are in the wrong room. please go next door, 201, if you want to go to that panel. it is a real honor to introduce a true law enforcement professional, some many i have known for many years. principaltly is a with the trough group, where he advises clients on a broad range of services, including supply
chain management. in touchcan really get with jay because he is usually somewhere in the world. he needs to be located near a very good airport of international connection, but 30 years and the u.s. customs service and border protection service, and i suppose i had the opportunity to work in see his good work when he was commissioner of customs and border protection. only in an acting capacity, but there for a number of months and maybe years. it seems like it was a long time . he was so recognized and appreciated that the president in 2005 conferred the right of this thing which executive on him. -- the rank of distinguished executive on him. it is a real pleasure to introduce him as the moderator. thank you al.
>> thanks very much. the most important thing in my life now, the title i cherish most, is grandfather. i have the pleasure of being a grandfather. it is much better than many of the things i've done over the years. enough about me. or sixth yearfth that i've had the opportunity to moderate the panel. the department of homeland security, 220,000 people, seven different organizations, a little over 11 years. take a look at the different missions put together under the department of homeland security. the facts and reality of the world today could certainly fall into the hands of these leaders who are sitting to my left. jon weiner is the assistant commissioner for field operations, overseas about dan ispeople, and the
the deputy director at ice, 400 offices, 70 of which are overseas. an important part of the mission of dhs -- a lot of people think it begins just of the borders of this country. borderu take a look at security or any of the supply chain threats or intellectual property, we are dealing with transnational criminal organizations, and that begins outside the border. the best thing with the time we have is to stop and turn it over to our speaker, dan ragsdale. >> thank you for including me in the panel. i appreciate the topic and here to tell you what we do in the homeland security enterprise. it was born out of the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
we exist from 2 legacy components. the biggest piece of our portfolio is our investigative program. we have about 6000 special agents that investigate a full range of border and smuggling crimes, and then our civil administrative immigration piece , the piece that gets a fair amount of coverage in the news that deals with the very real immigration enforcement work that is a key part of the department abortus attorney mission. -- department of border security mission. just to set the stage, on any given day the numbers are useful. we open 120 criminal investigations every day thomas and in terms of the range of topical areas of the border enforcement mission at ice, we make about six arrest for child
we are aion crimes, straight people for money laundering or financial crimes, 30 drug smugglers and traffickers, 4 suspected human traffickers. that totals roughly 450 criminal arrests a day. in terms of the seizure side, we seized on average $3.9 million a day in currency and monetary instruments, on average about 19,000 counterfeit items that are brought to the united states , 165 weapons. on the child exploitation side, we process about 10 terabytes of looking tosingle day identify folks who target our most vulnerable population. on the immigration side, there is roughly at any given stage of the removal proceedings 1.8 million people in the process
before the immigration courts and the federal courts on immigration cases. we process in and out about 1200 people from our detention facilities and have about 22,000 folks in our alternative detention programs could we have an enormous health care system. we have health care for the roughly 34,000 people in our .ustody in terms of the homeland security mission, the thing that , again, is our most important pieces, again, protecting the homeland against terrorist attacks. we are a strong partner with the fbi, largest contributor to the organization. we work with them very closely on a whole range of foreign-based threats but also the domestic threats.
our counter perforation program, -- counter proliferation program , as we work on the enforcement reform, working towards single licensing and enforcement agency, our counter proliferation program the looks of the shipment of technology going under the united states. we house and lead the export enforcement control center. it is a key part of our border enforcement mission. our border enforcement security task forces are around the united states. it is a task force that we bring the full force of government and law-enforcement and many, many partners at our ports of entry. to make sure that all of the agencies that have a piece of located inion are co-
a way to be most affecte -- effective. the child exploitation work is a huge piece in terms of not only having americans who travel outside the united states to commit sexual crimes against children, but we have moved from the old days where child pornography and other materials were shipped into the united states through international mail to a place where the internet has broken out physical borders and we see bulletin boards and all sorts of things that are protected. router or justn a range of encryption that makes the child exploitation mission that much harder. example, we work to case out of our boston office where a search warrant in boston led to an image of a stuffed and shared it with our
partners and it turns out it was a stuffed animal unique to the netherlands. further work that's done with the dutch authorities. find out that it is a daycare owner abusing a two-year-old boy. and finds outnues that there are other images being shared with suspects in massachusetts that has a steel , and aastration tools stainless steel table in his basement. we make that arrest working with our international partners. i cannot tell you the credit i have to give to our agents that are surrounded by that sort of work every single day, and how important it is that international sharing and the border enforcement mission makes that such a powerful weapon to protect our children. the big two things that are very
much in the news -- moving to things that are very much in the concernedks are about folks crossing our border from central america. our secretary came to ice to announce results from operation coyote. it is a good example to show that we bring our immigrations and customs mission together. in operation coyote, where we are targeting the human smuggling operators in mexico and central america, to dismantle literally the pathways that bring folks into the united states, at the same time we're bringing our financial prime expertise to that same mission and we have identified a we call final accounts, where we see bank accounts opened along the inthwest border but deposits relatively small amounts from all over the united states in an anonymous fashion, where the money is deposited in chicago and withdrawn in laredo and into mexico, the organization's
hands. we have seized hundreds of bank accounts to essentially stop the illicit transfer of wealth. on the ero side we are continuing to refine our enforcement policies and procedures. last year we removed over 250,000 people around the globe. of those, 59% were convicted criminals. 2008.an 89% increase from folks who-- the present the greatest threat to border security and public safety is a key focus of ice. just in our crosscheck initiatives, we have arrested 15,000 fugitives and those who -- it is a key part of our structure. we will continue to work with
the hill and our law enforcement partners to further refine those initiatives to make sure that we have space for our enforcement mission that suits the very population we are seeing. and when we make those roughly we000 people every year, have the resources to investigate and prosecute the from around the world those organizations that seeks to do the united states harm. i will leave it there. >> special thank you to john wagner. he found out yesterday that he would be joining the panel because as your program reflects , the deputy at cbp was to be here but he had a little bit of a bike accident. recovering well. thank you for stepping in for kevin. >> thanks for having me and allowing me to fill in for kevin
, who fell off his bicycle the other day, but he is well on the road to recovery. acting assistant commissioner in the office of field operations. principally the uniform components of the custom service and the peace of the department of agriculture and the border patrol came over and a lot of heartrate functions and employees make up the bulk of our agency. customs service june 225 years old last month. it dates back to the first congress establishing that agency. we have been in this business for quite a long time. they are facilitating the legitimate trade and travel that is really so vital. lawsnforces more than 400 for about 60 different federal
agencies of the border. i will talk mostly today about what we do at the ports of entry. if anybody has traveled internationally, you have come through our process and met a lot of our great officers who are out there. we will talk about that in a little while. a reallylk first about critically important security mission, and what we do as far as the national security front we are addressing any type of national security threat on people or the articles they bringing or commercial cargo that is coming into the united states. and the opportunities we have and the systems we have on the analysis we do in order to address any of those concerns or threats as far in advance of that reaching our shores or getting on our aircraft coming .ere as possible
we basically use a risk-based strategy that relies heavily on advanced information that we received either from the airlines or people or the vessels or shippers, importers, exporters, any type of advanced information we can use. we are with a lot of our partners and other parts of the federal and state and local government and of course the private sector as well and our foreign counterparts. we take all of this information, we go through a series of evaluations of that data and on each and every shipment coming we try to look at it days in advance of their anticipated arrival. we will a whole national targeting center located in northern virginia that mr. ahearn was instrumental in getting off the ground after september 11. consolidating a lot of what we did building platforms and systems in this advanced
information and looking for different points in that process givemay give us concern or us a reason to look a little closer at something. i will start with international travelers first. what we look at when we are processing travelers coming to the u.s., a few days before we travel we work closely with the commercial airlines and we get access to a lot of their and theyon systems sent us manifest who is projected to the on board the aircraft and we work closely with tsa on how to go through the information and we forget travel patterns, people who are -- have been to parts of the world that may want us to look a little closer at the prison and asked a few different questions that really look for what is giving us some type of concern, or if we have a known piece of intelligence, a known piece of
enforcement information, who was connected to that piece of information, on what is the appropriate response? we try to take that action as far in advance as possible. we go back a few years to the christmas day bomber, on du -- tallab, who tried to blow up the plane over detroit, we look at what were the different opportunities, because we had access to that information. what were the opportunities we could have acted -- not knowing his intentions, but could we have found out were uncovered his intentions earlier in the process? we looked at putting systems in place where we could do that. once we go through this information and identify things inwant to look closer at -- the case of a traveler what we have been is deployed immigration advisory program officers. these are cbp officers and we
have them in 11 different countries, mostly at the gateway airports in europe and asia and south america. what they do is work at the airports and they don't have any authority. they are in an advisory role working with the airlines announced authorities. -- airlines and most authorities. we thinka case where because it is something in their backgrounds making them inadmissible to the united states because they are a visitor, we can make recommendations to the airlines that they not board the person, because if they do board them and fly them, chances are we are not going to find them admissible to the united states and they will have to fly them back. we refer them over to the u.s. embassy and review their visa and take extra time to look at who they are. the other way we do it is just from our national targeting center, we have direct contact with airlines and are able to call them the points of embarkation to talk to a person,
make sure they are screened and asked her ways, or refer them again to the embassy. do isher thing we something called preclearance. we have officers stationed on foreign soil in several different countries. we are in canada, we are in the caribbean, we are in ireland. we just opened a new site in abu dhabi in the united arab emirates. it is different than the immigration advisory program. we have officers in uniform with authorities, although they are on foreign soil, we have reached agreements with those countries to duty the. of inspections you would do when you land in the united states. by doing so, we are protecting that transportation sector, making sure we are fully searching and caring people before they get on board the aircraft. or if there are questions about their documents or
admissibility, they can't look at that before they got on five-year. -- on flight here. treated like a domestic arrival in the united states so they can connect without clearing through cbp after landing. and we several programs worked very closely with express consignment industry, with an attempt to blow up some of the aircraft with printer cartridges with bombs in them. we developed a system that allowed us to work with the industry closely, and we can screen the information and point out what shipments need extra scrutiny before they put it on board aircraft. they have a vested interest in doing it. we have also got the customs trade partnership against launched, program we
after september 11, which worked very closely with industry in helping to secure their supply chains and how they are able to secure commercial shipments. all through that supply chain, from when in his first packaged up to when it is delivered to the united states. the other program we have, similar to the immigration advisory program, we have a program called the container security initiative where we station cbp officers overseas, and we are at 50 locations over the world. we work closely with the host customs authorities and are able to point out our request of them to do some type of screening and inspection of commercial cargo based on risk profiles and what we see and we are able to screen that before we put it on the commercial bustle destined for vesselt -- commercial
destined for the united states. it is to address concerns we have long before it reaches our shores, leveraging our foreign counterparts and industry stakeholders working cooperatively to be able to to make environment sure everything and every person coming here doesn't in the most safe and secure and efficient manner as possible. we are able to facilitate all of the legitimate trade and traffic for international travelers for all the citizens and residents that are flying back to the united .tates we have a million people a day entering the united states at the legal ports of entry, tremendous volume of people, 360 million people, one million people a day coming into the united states. we want to make sure that number one, we are efficient, and that it is a safe and secure
environment. we have seen the international in correlations to when we have these events. we want people to understand that it is safe to come to the united states and it is a welcoming country and what about people that come here. for cbp we see the economic value and foreign travel and visitation to the united states. we are really seeing unprecedented growth in the international arrivals traffic, consistently rising 4% in the last couple of years. no secret that the u.s. government budget woes and struggles, we have had to keep pace and natural resources. it has been challenging for us -- if you were here he would tell us we are relentlessly self-critical in looking at our operations are not only as secure as they can be but as efficient as well.
we are always trying to do more with less. just letting people up and making them wait is in nobody's interest, including ours, and certainly not the countries interest. it is not the kind of environment we want a home our .itizens and residents we see the economic value that foreign travelers bring. the u.s. travel association reminds us that each foreign visitor spends $4500 on every trip here. i think it is about for every three for visitors to the united states it supports one u.s. job in the travel industry. these numbers really add up, and in a monster jobs and support for the economy and the tax base and all the resulting great stuff that comes with that. we have got to make sure it is done not only in it -- in a sufficient fashion but secure fashion. we have built what we call a
resource optimization strategy. i will give him a love of the credit for really shepherding this and bringing this vision together. it is a three-part strategy and it is looking at our workload itself in taking a data-driven approach to what is the right amount of staff we needed each word of entry? we literally went through and identified every test the cbp officer does of the port of entry, how long it takes to do .hat task we divide by the amount of work hours of an employee and it comes up with a very large number of staff that we need. we estimate we are about 4373 officers short of what we need to do by having this data-driven supported approach we can get it to the administration and get it onto the hell in the administration's budget request. back it up data to and we can tie in the economic
factors and what that brings to the country and what an investment in a cbp officer means. we have had some economic -- economists, group out of the university of southern california, help us go through this data and what does it mean and what is the value of a cbp officer as far as the trade that they can process only foreign visitors. well over $1 million per officer. it is a good investment for the country to make and we can pay the country back many times over by making that investment in staffing. if you followed our budget last year you saw the receipt -- we received an additional bunch of cbp officers. and the administration's request for next fiscal year, there's another 2373 officers in there as well. we are working to that and making sure these officers are assigned to the right ports of
entry to the other part of that is what we call the business transformation initiatives. recognizing that all government agencies are probably shorthanded at this point. up.ybody's workload is we want to make sure we're taking a hard look at our own operations. just because we have only done things one way, is that still the right way to do it? getting rid of paper forms, the i-94 form that visitors have to fill out on the plane, that would've cost us $70 million a year. forget that we have the data electronically. we built a system to connect it to. we built all that and we got rid of the form and the public is happy. it is costlyadd up for us. the other form you fill out on
the plane. maybe as soon as later this year we will phase it in and out on the other programs. we have taken a lot of great steps with automated kiosks. some of you may be enrolled in the global entry program. we fill out an application and do a series of background checks and take your fingerprints and once you are enrolled in the program, you don't have to get in line. you answer customs declarations questions so you don't have to fill out the form. you can basically walked out the door. it helps us because these are already takenave the time to look deeply into them and we have made the judgment that they are not a security threat.
it is based on the ability to the background checks to demonstrate past compliance with the laws and regulations. they know the process almost as well as us. they have the expectation they will continue to follow. why not an automated process to clear them through the city. cbp?rough the they have about 2.6 million people enrolled in the program now. thousands of officers ours that we can rededicate reprocessing everyone else. we have also launched in this past year sort of a lighter version of that called automated passport control, which is another kiosk that if you are not enrolled in global entry you can still use the kiosk. it is -- it does the
administrative work and you can read your passport into the declaration questions that you are subject to the requirements as a foreign visitor. we do a series of computer checks. you see an officer and get an abbreviated interview because we have already been processed your information. what we have seen is we can reduce those wait times. people waiting to see us by up to 35 to 40% at some of the high-volume locations. we have these kiosks in $.22 right now -- 22 sites right now going -- we just launched pilot in atlanta. download an application on your phone.
what we see in the coming years is much like checking in for an airline, you will have placed clear it through cbp when you arrive at the airport. you can do it on your phone, kiosk, or the old-fashioned way and get in line and talk to an officer. we want to build a different opportunities for people depending on the road capacity and level of comfort with how they want to act for us. we are better able to focus on the things we are able to focus on and don't have to sit and go through the same routine process with a visio person, every single time -- with every single person, every single time. so we will be launching a lot more kiosks this coming year, with all the major gateway airports. lax opens next week. most of the other airports are using these. miami, jfk, dallas, houston,
chicago, san francisco. it is showing tremendous value that we are working closely with the travel and tourism stakeholders to come up with additional ideas on how to do this and what are the other ways we need to look at processing people. as the volume continues to increase, and you see airline schedules and everyone wants to land at the same time, it does create challenges for all of us, even for the industry, how you process that many people through a small window of arrivals .hrough the airport facility we have been working very, very closely with industry stakeholders to come up with ideas to do that. doing that with a one- or two-hour window in miami, the physical but -- physical capacity is not there.
without something changing airline schedules -- their business model is not a practical solution. we are working closely with them on ways to do that. we are open to any ideas that people or industry has. >> thank you very much could we have about 15 minutes left. it is an opportunity for you all to ask questions. as the first question is are getting ready to come forward, let me ask both of the panelists counterterrorism caused the department of homeland security to be established. you pick up the paper or listen to the news and you see what is going on with some of the syrian foreign fighters. does thatof threat present the homeland, when you are taking a look at individuals that share a lot of westerners and u.s. citizens echo going to
-- westerners and u.s. citizens? going through airports, a lot more swabbing. how much of a threat is really the homeland facing and what are the things your organizations are doing to mitigate some of the threat that may be out there? not looking for any acknowledgment of threat levels. tocertainly, one only has look at the paper every morning and see that there is not a lot of good news reading the news. that is something we feel very acutely. we know that leveraging our international footprint and the fact that we are sharing more and more information with foreign partners, we do not want to wait for the feds to land on her doorstep national the threats to land -- we do not want to wait for the threats to land on our doorstep. there is no question that
information sharing and discussions about big data and electronic footprints that folks have about their travel patterns is really the approach that law enforcement is bringing today, and levying again our international partnership is particularly key, and that is everything from the world customs organization to the immigration advisory work, leveraging the relationships have. >> excellent point, really a key to a lot of it. working with foreign partners and stakeholders in identifying national security concerns as far in advance as possible and being able to take the appropriate action. sometimes it is just questioning people to find out what they are up to. as faran address tha in advance as we can -- you look at over the last couple years, we had the time square bomber, the christmas day bomber, the
printer cartridges, the shoe bombing attempts. the threat is still very much out there. it is still very much a concern for us. we get you read the intelligence reports every day. as international travelers you should take comfort in that we are up every night worrying about it and trying to build policies and procedures and operations that keep everyone safe and secure, so you don't have to worry about it. but it is concerning for us and we see a lot of activities out there. we continue to refine our methods on how we do it to make sure that america is a safe place to visit and study and return home to and we want to make sure it is a secure and safe environment as can be. >> as you look at the threat from almost 13 years post-9/11, a much more decentralized
threat. we are seeing homegrown activities as well. it seems like there is still a fascination with aviation so hopefully the programs and international footprints you have out there will identify these things before they happen. congratulations to book your organizations and dhs for combating a lot of these things that we don't hear about. don'ts good news that we have to hear about some of the things that do get thwarted before they actually begin the whole transportation process in the united states. if we can shift to the southern border, some of the issues facing the country on the border, not just a southern border issue, when you look at the very topical -- the unaccompanied children coming into the united states, a lot of folks in the depending on which 24-hour media cycle you watch and monitor. you may get a different opinion based on which one you watch. awould characterize it as whole series of events, looking at central american countries
from el salvador and guatemala, a lot of instability there, and governance and corruption issues . a lot of families have been separated for a number of years that have folks and family members living here and children looking to come here. when you look at what happened two or three years ago, the numbers started to surge this year with unaccompanied children coming to the united states. the transit through mexico, there is an issue and challenge their. a lot of them surrender themselves of the border because andaps of ambivalence policy of whether they will be able to stay in the united states. it creates a strain and burden on both your organizations from the interdiction, apprehension, handling, transportation, hhs come the department of justice from the administrative process has a heavy response ability, and state department for capacity building. is the current
state of affairs, and what do you see over the next few months , particularly as you talk about budget issues? there was a supplemental that for her -- supplemental before that had significant chunks of your money. maybe they will do something before the end of the fiscal year. i know that compromises a lot of andrams internally at dhs and each one of your agencies you are being asked to meet obligations you already advanced resources on. question, but i wonder if you have a comment or outlook from your perspective. there is lots of discussions and opinions about push and pull factors that are driving some of these. from the ice perspective, we do know that there is criminal smuggling element here as it relates to transnational organized crimes. we look at pathways and from the law enforcement perspective we
see that as a threat to border security, putting aside humanitarian issues. that is where our focus is going to be. we do not want to see organizations that are putting vulnerable people in harms way suffering for it. -- putting vulnerable people in harms way profiting from it. >> it is certainly another challenge. facetsny of the effort -- different facets of what we find ourselves with at the border and the things like the ebola crisis and other activities, we try to use every tool and resource three have to help address it. and working collectively as a whole government approach has helped us get our arms around it and really make sure we are following what the law asks us to do and instructs us to do. and make sure that we have grounded in an orderly and safe and secure -- got it and in
orderly and safe is your passion. >> i have not seen anybody approach the microphone you. ?ir gentlemen.ernoon, i start by appreciating both of your agencies do. being from phoenix, both of you can understand the hot topic of the border. piggybacking on what you were saying, without previous speaker talking about the multiple -- with our previous speaker star game of the multiple factors of what is going on globally, in addition to the hot topic of thernor perry bringing national guard to the texas border, our resources stretched too thin? not is being done to help just the border but your resources overall? >> well, you have heard both
mr. ahearniner and that capabilities are driven by the resources that congress gives us. i don't think there is anybody in law enforcement who says they have everything they need or would like to i do think that what you have to see, and it is from every federal agency, to use mr. reiner's -- mr. wagner's phrase, is are we targeting the issues that produced the best law enforcement outcome? there have been many discussions along the assault was border about what should we be doing. i will tell you that as we bring all the tools we have up to the fight, dismantling organizations that will smuggle money and arele and contraband, they issue agnostic. crime is done for profit.
taking the tools away, the resources, the assets is the right approach. it could be an alien smuggling case, but going after the bank account with the money is really going to put people out of business. that is what we are doing. matter of focusing what are the most important threats facing us at any given moment. there are multiple threats and activities we find ourselves in. we have alien smugglers, we have all sorts of commercial trade violations coming at us, from international property rights violations, to facilitating the legitimate trade that comes across the border. tremendous, tremendous william --legitimate trade tremendous, tremendous volume of legitimate trade that feeds the entire country, making sure we're not focusing on one area at too much of the expense of the other come and balancing that risk and tolerating that, how much we put in each area, and the tremendous volume of
legitimate people that come back and forth, and building the programs that allow us to not get caught up in just a ministry of work for the sake of administrative work, and making sure there is efficient and automated as possible to free up resources to focus on the other high threat or new and emerging threats that we are faced with. do, admire the work they and the fact that their public servants, they are constrained by what they can say. being a former polygamist look who is now in the private sector, they are -- former public official who is now in the private sector, they are severely underfunded. billion, 400 is going to going to cbp, 1.1 or so to ice. a big chunk of that is supposed to go to hhs and doj to find data mandates -- fund the
mandates that have happened addressed at this point. whether it be governor perry putting national guard agents out there, it is not going to add value. great release, not going to add operational value. -- adding more people for border patrol agents. taking a look at the whole process o looking at if there is the right administrative judges and the people to deal with the 90-day mandate for handling the resources. those things need to be addressed, not just the things that are out there that grabbed headlines. i empathize with these folks for not getting the funding they need. the had to forward a lot of initiatives because they had an urgent humanitarian crisis could they hope that they would be reimbursed for those efforts. there will likely be suffering to some degree because they had to reprogram to cover the spent funds already.
i'm not looking for either of you guys to comment on those things, but that is an outsider's view i hope that the remaining weeks they will do the right thing and perhaps take a look going forward with the appropriate level of ending and ifhaps some executive order immigration reform isn't going to get on the agenda. those things have an effect on that flow on the borders. sheila and i am a former prosecutor. i had a question about whether there has -- what effect if any deportour policy to alien felons, particularly gang '90srs from the '80s and have created some of the problems in central america that led to unaccompanied minors coming up. has anybody looked at the issue of deportations or how the policy affects future
immigration problems? >> i cannot propose that that has been a direct link. our acting director is in honduras did sign an information sharing agreement with the government of honduras to share information about folks leaving the united states after the immigration process completes and returns to the countries. i said earlier, that the more we can share with our , the result is obviously what the law requires, but getting information to what i will say is the receiving countries is all will to them as they also -- is helpful to them as they also have a public safety and policing situation similar to what we have here. partnership being the principle is the right answer. at least that is what we are working on every well in central america right now.
>> good afternoon. an attorney with customs and border protection in bc speaking to the lack of resources and what mr. ahern mentioned about lack of prosecutorial resources, sometimes ice or cbp will do a currency seizure, a rather large amount. is there a particular threshold in a district and the case doesn't get prosecuted for some reason, it goes administrative. is there any thought at all to amend or change the mitigation guidelines for currency and monetary instruments the issues -- instrument seizures that possibly find a legal or terrorist organizations -- fund illegal or terrorist organizations for the lack of us being able to prosecute them? >> we are in strained by what congress gives us, and it can
return to operations and the the is the big -- cbp, ice, coast guard all caps tribute -- all contribute we look very much at trends. we know why her transference and bulk cash represent phil-gotten proceeds going southbound. one of the things that we look at allh is to of the processes, all of the touch points, and resource them proportionally. that work is getting better. i will tell you we have great partners at the department of justice, and certainly our great partners that can do that, but we also see a lot of cash that is abandoned. it is a blended approach. i take your point.
the proceeds and the money is the real game. you want to add anything? >> we also have the luxury of working with state and local prosecutions. they have a lot of work straight -- workload constraint issues that a lot of us has -- have and they focus on what they concede are the best cases for them to there is a more appropriate way for them to handle it, but it oils down to the decision-making other organizations will make to what -- boils down to the decision-making other organizations will make. we also have opportunities and our administrative regulations and requirements and we can look at mitigating and aggravating circumstances. we have a lot of leeway on which ways we can go depending on the
culpability, knowledge, and whether this was an intentional violation, or was this bulk cash that was being smuggled for certain purposes. what was the culpability of the person smuggling it? those factors will come into play in those decisions. >> i will add a perspective that it is a lot of prosecutorial discretion that goes to the federal district and certainly, the state and local, as john and dan articulated. aggravating factors, even if you cannot persuade a prosecutor to take the case, there are still tools on the administrative side to make sure you could at least take the money away. you do not have to do on-site mitigation. he did not even necessarily have to on the petition for mitigation if they petition after the fact. make them go through the proceedings if you believe it is cash from illegal gains.
yes, sir? >> given our time, this gentleman, you will have the last opportunity to ask a question. >> it is an honor. >> we are. >> thank you. in the event there is an undocumented individual, and he has criminality, would ice accommodate and legitimize his status here? >> we have a whole host of tools and we get tips and information from folks that have a variety of immigration status. absolutely, it happens every day. >> it is fair to say if i go on your website it will direct me what to do customer >> there is a tip line -- what to do?
>> there is a tip line. >> thank you very much. >> this hour has passed quickly for me. hopefully it was quick for the panelists. thank you for being here, and thank you for the work you and your agencies do. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] can watch this bar association session and other parts of this conference that we're covering this afternoon on our website. go to c-span.org. the pentagon is considering sending 300 more troops to iraq to enhance security for state department facilities in baghdad, bringing the total
number of uniformed americans there to about 1000. as decision is not imminent a formal request is being waited on. secretary chuck hagel and martin dempsey will likely touch on the issue at the pentagon briefing. they will take question starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern. we will have that live for you on c-span. earlier today, rick talked about immigration. border security and immigration reform. he said a few public officials --e taken efficient with have taken issue with the exercise of his veto authority -- and that these are fundamentally rights that are very important. -- "i amy confident very confident in my case, and i will defend our constitution and stand up for the rule of law." you can watch his remarks today
on c-span starting at 7:25 p.m. eastern. coming up tonight, opposing views on the issue of climate cofounder of the weather channel and founder of greenpeace. here is a preview. ipcc does not subscribe to the believe that extreme weather events are tied to global warming, whether it is human caused or not. they say there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events related to the warming gore,as occurred, yet al the whole bunch of them, perpetuate the idea that every extreme weather event is because of us. this is why we will never be able to predict the future of the climate other than about three days out, as john coleman who is coming up soon, probably
tells you -- will tell you he knows. it is because of clouds. it is the only one that occurs in liquid and gaseous phases in the atmosphere. they behave in completely different ways with regard to solar energy. clouds can reflect the sun back, hold the heat and, depending on how thick they are, and what computer model can predict the pattern of clouds in the world? it is impossible. that is why we will never be able to predict the future of and clouds are the wildcard. any people believe as the earth warms it will be cloudier and there will be more sunlight back, and there will be a negative feedback against the effects of co2, and that is just as plausible as the friday and
hellipod -- fry in hypothesis that we get from the alarmist. >> we think there is a debate over the effects, but no debate over the earth warming or man's contribution. models of the world's leading scientists predict droughts, more severe frequent storms. we are seeing the impact already . we thought the ocean was our friend. .t was our friend is paying a penalty. the carbon is causing the acidity of the ocean to rise and is already threatening other ocean species. the culprit is the same -- carbon that originated --
originated from fossil fuels contributing to planetary warming. >> again, that entire program airs tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. here's a look at what some members of congress are up to today. john mccain finished up a conversation with the arizona republic editorial board and is now heading to talk to the arizona chamber of commerce. steve womack tweets good show this morning. senator ben cardin -- maryland senator ben cardin again, today's pentagon briefing coming up at 3:30 p.m. eastern. until then, a portion of today's "washington journal." talking about different elements. today a discussion about the environment, talking about air quality.
two guests. we're joined by rob, with george washington university environmental law professor. also jeff former e.p.a. assistant administrator for air and radiation from 2001 to 2005. good morning. let me start by reading a little bit of president johnson and what he talked about when it comes dot environment and ssues we'll be discussing. what do you think about that statement? guest: i think lyndon johnson
was a visionary in some ways. he was the first president to articulate an environmental program that didn't just focus on a traditional conservation, the kind that teddy roosevelt might have endorsed. e focused also on rest ration, innovation, how are we going to improve these resources rather than just preserve resources that have -- that are still pristine. host: so as mr. homestead what about his statement and to you has that beard itself out? guest: i think in many ways it has. he of course was prior to his times back in the late 60s is when i think the public at large began to be concerned about air pollution. it had long been a problem in southern california but it was an increasing problem in other parts and i think he responded to that kind of public pressure. i think clearly the clean
air act that had kind of its initial beginnings in the johnson administration has been a very important part of protecting public health and the environment. host: has the clean air act that we initially saw under president johnson the same as we see today? guest: no. the 67 act which is referred to as the air quality act, introduced a few concepts that continue to be in place. the idea that there would be specific areas of the country where there would be the need to have a coordinated program. and that really comes from 67. and 67 also was the first time that the federal government was authorized to set tail pipe standards for automobiles. they never actually did that because the 67 act was super seeded in 197 o 0 but those two ideas have now continued to be part of the modern act. host: was the goal of the 67
act ongoing to reduce it the amount of stuff in the air that we find is that too sim is police tick? guest: the 67 act really focused on what is in the air now and that was one of the important things that it actually did. let's measure. let's see what the problem is so we then can think about how to reduce it. the other thing the 67 act did that i think we still see in our programs and policies today is establish the state federal partnership where the states have a role in enforcement that is overseen by the federal government. that relationship and that programic approach began in the 67 act. host: so what kind of stuff are we looking for at the time were we looking at the air to reduce? guest: the 67 act was like much it lation the impetus for was some smoy smog events, some instances both in london and
new york where people died as a result of poor quality air. ozone is a major component of you are ban smog so that was something -- bshbshoiben smog. so they began to focus on. not in the 67 act but in the 1970 clean air act which really provides the structure and continues to provide the structure for much of our clean air act regulation today did focus on some of those what are called criteria pollutants major pollutants. host: such as? guest: ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen ox yides, particulates. carbon monoxide, hired carbons were originally in the act but then subsequently it was found that hide row carbons were adequately regulated by ozone and led was added to the list
of criteria pollutants. host: so as this became an effort by the federal and state to do this, what did the federal do? what did the federal impose? what did the state impose? guest: well, let me first correct something. back in 67 there was no e.p.a. guest: that's true. guest: it was created under president nixon so in those days it was health education and welfare. and looking back it's surprising how little we knew about this pollution not only what the health effects might be but what was being emitt what the concentrations in the air were. so the 67 act more than anything created research programs and for the first time had people going out and establishing these monitors. the effort to really go after these so-called criteria pollutants that robin mentioned really comes from the 70 act.
guest: right. guest: so back in 67 they knew there was a smog event people could see, people would cough. but exactly what contributed to that smog was we were just beginning to understand that. host: so the 70 act gave the effort teeth, so to speak. guest: yes. it certainly increased the kind of regulatory programs that the federal government could impose. in 67 the only regulations that the federal government that hew would actually issue were for new cars and trucks. and then there was an ability for hew to step in if the states were not doing well enough. but before that ever happened people realized that it probably needed to be amended and the 70 act came into being. host: we're looking at efforts put into effect under lbj. if you have questions for them ere's how you can call in.
first up is calvin from north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you and the rest of the c-span crew for the really great job you do to keep us informed. two questions. one, as the gentleman articulated, lbj started this initiative. democratic president with i'm not sure whether a republican or democrat dominated house and senate. e.p.a. came into reality under nixon, a republican. again not sure of the congressional makeup. but my first question is when did the great political divide happen? where folks who believe in the environmental initiatives are against big business and against private business and it's too expensive, and the other folks are for the
consumers? so when did the great divide happen? then how does your research and information contribute to the global warming debate? again the same scenario. folks say it's a myth. we've always had dirty air, we're going to always have dirty air. and the other side says if we don't plan now there won't be a future for our grandchildren. guest: thanks for that question. i think that the difficulties in congress and what some would call the gridlock in congress has happened over the last few years. certainly it is a relevant thing to say that it would be nice
at could be epa. sourcesssed the kind of that could be regulated to control greenhouse gases. mr.: mr. homestead -- holmstead? passedthe acts were unanimously. i think what has happened over time, and one of the reasons we see such polarization is we have really picked the low-hanging fruit. it is amazing how much progress we have made in cleaning up our air. you go back -- i have some experience under the clean air act, the -- reductions, and they have all been dramatic.
is gettingas meant the next increment has become increasingly expensive, and probably less important. there's debate especially about the last part but as it's gotten much more costly for industry and consumers, you've tended to have this divide. and even back in 1990 that divide was apparent but president george h.w. bush tried to create a consensus that led to the 1990 amendments but we really haven't seen any significant legislation since then. host: pennsylvania democrat's line. vince. caller: good morning. my question is in 2005 the cheney loopa was put into the energy bill which set up the stage for the fracking boom that we're having nowadays. how does the exemption to the clean air and clean water act
ffect the air quality today? guest: hydraulic fracturing which is called fracking. e 2005 issue was that e.p.a. was found to have less control over that some had hoped to have as a regulatory mechanism. there are still rules. some of them are state-driven which folks have concerns about because different states have different levels of stringsy. in controls over things like hydraulic fracturing. so that localizes debates which people would -- some folks would say is a good thing because it provides more local control more local siptssn input but also allows for more politics and local politics to enter into that decision making
and i'm sure frats frustrating to many as well. host: cheryl from new hampshire. caller: i would like to know how it can be helping clean air in when there's knox yide the pools all the time chris crossing the sky making checker boards in the sky, they're spraying the stuff in the sky. what's this doing to the air? host: you mean residue from airlines and things like that? caller: this is not coming from the airlines. there's a difference between kem trails and contrails. it's up there. you know. and they're seeding the sky with lumen ox yide and i would to know where are they going to stop. guest: i have to say i don't know anything about that issue. and the world in which i live that's never been considered a significant problem so i can't
help the caller on that. host: when the act first came out particularly how did industries take it? because it directly most affects industries at the time and going forward. implingts i think in the early days there was much more of a national consensus on these issues. and industry was certainly willing to step up and do the thing that is were necessary that they thought was reasonable. what's happened, as i said over time we've made these enormous improvements and in all these pollutants but as it's become more and more expensive you tend to get more and more industry concerned about the cost of some of these programs. so you look back to the orely days. there was a consensus we needed to do something. the 67 and 70 act passed unanimously. as the reductions, the programs have become more and more expensive, industry has really
started to push back to a much greater extent. host: are some hit harder by the acts, say the coal industry? guest: sure. that varies from administration to administration. the clean air act does give significant discretion to e.p.a. and i think under the obama administration everyone would agree that they've been especially aggressive in targeting cold fired power plants and coal mining. so that really wasn't the case under the clinton and bush administration but there's been a very aggressive effort for the last 5-1/2 years. host: as far as industries. what about their ability to push back? do they have cover? guest: i think another interesting fact too think about in the regulatory scheme is the technology forcing provisions. there are many parts of the act that premise regulation based on the acnims quite quickly quite deeply, best achieveable
control neck noling backed. maximum achieveable controlled technology. several others for various kipeds of sources and various kinds of situations. that can be helpful to industry who are typically able to develop some of those sorts of technologies and have a discussion with regulators such as eacha that it's frankly harder for citizens to become involved in because it's such a high technical level often. i think another point to be made about industry is companies often want certaintyty as much as they . nt
our ghost put teaches at environmental what do you do? who do you represent? guest: our firm represents primarily people in the energy business. so we represent companies that are involved in any kind of energy that you can imagine from coal fired power plants to natural gas development and exploration to refineries to wind and solar projects as
well. so our law firm where i've been now for the last seven years primarily represents the energy industry. host: lbj signing the clean air act into law photograph provided to us about that event. we're here talking about the -- mate g pact with the impact with our guests. caller: i've heard several things about the e.p.a. coming after wood-burning stoves and people not using wood-burning stoves in their homes any more. is there any truth to that? how come there's no one on your panel that's opposing the other side? >> well, e.p.a. i think is in the process of jip dating regulations for wood burning stoves. host: it even comes down to a personal level. guest: it is remarkable the reach. the hair spray that people use and the lighter fluid and the cosmetics and paints and
coatings as well as vehicles and fab rishes. it is extraordinarily broad and regulates everything. you look around this room and all of these things here were produced at plants that are subject to the clean air act. host: is that a result of further revisions? guest: back in 1967 it was very generic and no one anticipated you would have these sorts of programs. but over time as i say it's become much more aggressive. host: what about the scope of who is affected? guest: the clean air act is broad. there's no question about that. i think that's appropriate. another thing that's quite interesting about the act and environmental laws in general is the power of citizen suits. that's something we've not talked about so far. and i think we as environmental lawyers tend to forget how unique they are but the clean air act in 1970 and much of the
subsequent environmental law as well adopted provisions often talked about as private attorneys general in which citizens groups, individuals, environmental groups have the power to enforce provisions of these statutes themselves. you don't have to lobby the e.p.a. or another regulator to take action. you have the power to take action yourself. and i think that's a significant and powerful provision and tool that our citizens have to use. host: republican line, oklahoma. mike go ahead. caller: good morning. this is the second time i've called. i just wanted to give credit where credit is due during this discussion about lbj. it wasrixrd nixon who created the e.p.a. in 970. so let's not leave richard
environmental regulars have impinged on things people care about. there are a lot of people who believe that it has grown to an extent and citizens, for example , our country is the only country in the world where people have that option and it -- often abused. you have well-funded opponent to want to stop a particular program. up, theyre lawyered can delay the building of a plant for years and often try to drag it out. does the clean air act need to be changed? are there ways the regulatory apparatus has gone beyond what is good for society? that is a debate people are having. >> what are chief among them? >> one is the difficulty of
citing and holding new projects. that can be used to stop people for years and years and i think the epa should set parameters the people know what they are shooting at. a lot of these are made on a case-by-case basis. there's a lot of uncertainty about what you are allowed to build and if we had clear standards and people had certainty going forward, these standards are very stringent, but going forward, i know where they are. >> what do you think about these proposals? all of us can point to situations where there has been more gridlock in the development than the proponents may have thought was fair or right.
i think the citizens ability to have a voice is important. i think it's an important part of that even if they are not used, even if they are present as a threat, i think that has an important regulatory purpose. wes from maryland, go ahead. i apologize for my unfamiliarity of the terminology, but the woman on targeted mentioned the services during the time the regulation was coming from a gw. i was under the impression that came along much later. guest: i said carbon monoxide.
that was one of the pollutants that were pointed out as criteria. were pollutants articulated under the 1970 act, not the 1967 act. it is carbon monoxide and the collar is completely correct. >> maybe if i can quickly address that question -- no one ever thought carbon monoxide would be regulated and i think people generally agree with that just was not considered to be a pollutant. dioxide -- abored lot of programs were designed to take other pollutants and to come -- convert them into less harmful substances. particularly carbon dioxide. it's fundamentally different from anything else regulated under the clean air act.
a lot of clean air act programs just don't make any sense if you try to use co2 to deal with them. until fairly recently, nobody thought the clean air act could be used to regulate co2 emissions. now after a decision by the supreme court, they are trying to use the structure of the cree -- of the clean air act and we are kind of at the beginning of that process. and as controversial recent proposal that has come out which i think goes well beyond what epa can do, but that's a big debate right now. this is just coming down the wire -- the epa administrator jackson in a conference to integrate the toxins report to congress. they're working with state and
local travel agencies to help communities understand and reduce exposures to toxins pollutants. can you give some background as far as this survey? >> sure. program existed in a very nation form earlier but got a lot of teeth in the 1990 amendments to the clean air act. this is a set of pollutants different from the so-called criteria pollutants we have been discussed thing earlier and address air toxics which can be -- air toxins that can be carcinogenic. this report will be expanding further information. out, ifwould just point you look at independent analysis, those programs have cost much more than the benefit has been worth.
those programs have turned out to be costly. say if we haduld the choice, though we would spend less of our resources on those programs and more on other programs. that's one of those things that could be fixed under the clean air act. >> what is the cost to the consumer? guest: if it costs less to consume, we see that price -- we see that passed down to the consumer. our bills have gone up significantly over time for a variety of factors. in recent years it is because of new environmental requirements and that's why you see the cost of electricity is much, much higher in california and much higher in the northeast compared to other parts of the country impose significant
costs on the consumers. the painted to use for your house is more expensive because of environmental requirements will stop those are passed down in many ways. i was just wondering if the suits and ties at the epa live in the real world. have they looked around and noticed there are no car manufacturing plants, no steel mills anymore? i had a truck at a rest area in boston that was alluding. seeif they look around and we have nothing going on like we used to, mexico city, look at that lays. we cannot control them. the epa is an entity of the government that has gone wild. everybody a burden on
and that is my comment. >> that is certainly a viewpoint. there are others who would disagree and say -- >> good afternoon, everybody. as the u.s. central command continues to provide regular updates about our military support to iraq and kurdish forces, this afternoon, i want to say a few words about what this assistance has accomplished over the last two weeks and, based on the president's guidance, what we can expect going forward. chairman dempsey will give you a brief summary, including some numbers on the u.s. military actions to date. offer my, let me deepest condolences and sympathy to the family of jim foley. who asrican journalist
you all know was savagely isil.ed by the as the department of defense confirmed yesterday, earlier this summer, the united states attempted a rescue of a number of hostages held in syria, including jim foley. that mission did not succeed. but i am very proud of the u.s. forces that participated in it. and the united states will not relent our efforts to bring our citizens home and their captors to justice. jim foley's murder was another tragic demonstration of the --hless, barbaric ideology militants continue to massacre and slay innocent people and shiacute minority sunni, and kurdish populations.
given the nature of the threat, at president obama posture and and at the request of the iraqi government, the u.s. military has provided assistance to iraqi security forces in order to protect u.s. personnel and facilities. and support iraq's efforts to isil.r american air strikes and assistance helped kurdish forces slow isil's advance. where american troops are working and help the iraqis take --mosuul dam.ld it prevented the iraqi government from writing critical services to its citizens. the united states led an international effort to address the humanitarian crisis that unfolded at mount sanchar.
to be an acute humanitarian need elsewhere in iraq. the u.s. appreciates the u.k.,ipation of the canada, france and australia and the united nations in helping to provide relief. i expect more nations to step forward with more assistance in the weeks ahead. overall, these operations have stalled isil's momentum and enabled kurdish and iraqi forces to take the initiative. as iraqi and kurdish forces continue to take the initiative, the united states will continue to support them. but addressing the threat posted iraqil to the future of requires political reform in iraq. the country's peaceful transition of power last week was important and the united states will continue urging iraq plus new prime minister to establish an inclusive government that is responsive to the needs of all iraq plus citizens.
united iraq will be more secure and prosperous iraq. political reform will make it harder for isil to exploit sectarian divisions. the united states and international community will clinicalraq with progress. the chairman and i are clear eyed about the challenges ahead. we are pursuing a long-term strategy against isil because isil clearly poses a long-term threat. we should expect isil to regroup and stage new offenses and the u.s. military possible but is not over. president obama has been very clear on this point. -- our objectives are main clear -- to protect facilities, provide assistance to iraqi forces as they confront isil, and joined with international partners to address the humanitarian crisis.
with that, i will ask chairman dempsey for his comments and then we will take questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. as most of you know, i just returned on sunday from a trip to vietnam. today, i have my counterpart from singapore visiting. on vietnam, it was quite remarkable to be in vietnam 40 years after our departure from vietnam. to discuss opportunities for new relationships, building on our historical investment and incredible sacrifices of those who served there. my engagements in the region have our that we shoulder behind rebalance to the asia-pacific even as our military confronts challenges in other parts of the world. in fact, on sunday, i will depart for afghanistan. which brings me to iraq. generale command of lloyd austin at u.s. central command, our efforts have included to date 70 you manage. airdrop missions delivering 636
doubles goals of food, water and medical supplies will stop more than 60 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance --ties each day will stop each day. and targeted airstrikes conducted by air force and navy aircraft. these airstrikes have attempted u.s. persons and facilities and help to prevent humanitarian crises. future takes shape, i emphasize that during -- that an enduring stability will depend on creating a dependable partner in the iraqi government that must commit to be more inclusive with all of its population that has been thus far. with that, i am happy to take your questions. >> in your comments, you 's momentum has been installed recently but you expect it to regroup. the question is why not know after isil where they started,
which is in syria? i know you described enabling the iraqis lyrically and militarily to roll back the gains in iraq, but they do have . sanctuary in eastern syria what is the strategy if it is not to go root them out inside syria? why not go that route? >> first, going back to your point about my statement on what our objectives are, which i just restated in my statement, i would also say in addition to that, i believe the president has been clear on this, that we continue to explore all options regarding isil and how best we can assist our partners in that area. in iraq.rly you all know in the president's
billionfor a $5 antiterrorism fund, it was $500 million in their to assist the moderate opposition. at, is what we are looking that is what we are doing and we will continue to stay focused on what we are doing now and exploring all options. the options you refer to include airstrikes? >> we are looking at all options. >> i wanted to ask both of you specifically him hostage mess -- hoss ditch rescue mission. you have talked about protecting classified information. even if you were told the news media was going to publish an article, you repealed it because you doubt the media is going to publish something. youspecifically did both of think it was a good idea to
officially acknowledge in detail classified details about omission, that is a hostage rescue when there are still americans there? are you worried that this will risk other hostages lives? why did you both think it was a good idea to do this? >> why did we think it was a good idea to? >> acknowledge a classified mission for a hostage rescue. >> to start with, there were a number of news out let's -- news outlets that were aware of the action. of the raid. made by theision administration.
we concurred with that, to address the mission, recognizing everything that you said, there is always risk, there continues to be risk in every action or inaction we take. also, the administration had informed the families of the hostages of this effort. it was a decision and it was unanimous that we should in fact withoutdge this effort going into any of the specifics of it, which as you know, we will not stop as to your question as to whether this was a failure of intelligence, no. the fact is you all know intelligence does not come wrapped in a package with a bow. it is a mosaic of many pictures of many factors.
the enemy always has a say in everything. is, you have to work that reality in to any decision you make, but the underlying objective was to do everything we could as the president has hostages,scue these knowing their lives were in danger. of oure responsibility government and our leaders to do all we can to take action when we believe there might the a to make a rescue effort successful. this operation, by the way, was a flawless operation. but the hostages were not there. we will do everything we need to do, that the american people
would expect from their leaders, to continue to do everything we can to get our hostages back. >> [inaudible] was it a good enough reason that m media was going to write a article about this and do you believe it was an intelligence failure? washe military advice that rendered in response to your question was as long as sources and methods are not revealed, it would be a policy decision on whether to release the information on the raid. as to whether it was an intelligence hillier, i agree with the secretary of defense, the mission was executed lawlessly after a significant time of signing, preparation and rehearsal. it turned out the hostages were no longer at that location.
there believe they were at one point? >> i do. >> could you both talk about the long-term strategy against isis? victory of state john kerry said they will be crushed. the president calls it may cancer. if that is the case, why are u.s. airstrike so focused and limited? rhetoric doesn't match u.s. efforts. >> first of all, we are providing a tremendous amount of military assistance to the iraqi military forces. it is one country. all year long, we have been accelerated, all of the requests made by the iraqi government for , and wessistance
continue to do this. to the comments made by secretary kerry and the senate valuation of isil, the president said, secretary kerry has said, is not onlyf isil going to come at the hands of airstrikes will stop one of the things i noted in my comments here at the beginning of this press conference was an inclusive government in iraq is essential. to all -- as to how all of our international partners are going to have to deal with the action, airstrikes are part of bigger than just a military operation. our efforts as we executed the
residence strategy on this are specifically targeted for the reasons he said. we are working with international orders, we are working closely with the doingark to and are everything we can within the confines of our influence to inognize and deal with isil the middle east and recognizing it is a threat. it's not just going to come as a result of airstrikes. strategically, there are limits to how much you can accomplish with airstrikes. technically, you could accomplish a significant amount. i mentioned that in my comments. it is a broad scope of activities and actions. let's they say they still have not received the heavy weapons they requested. >> a task force for the equipping effort with the kurds, yes.
the secretary has a task force also from the government of iraq, which is not to be discounted as a significant moment with the won't bety that there a single state of a rock in the future. those conducting assessments in a joint operating centers have continued to evolve. this is not just about airstrikes. isis can believe defeated or destroyed without addressing the cross-border threat from syria and is it possible to contain them? >> let me start from where you ended and end up where you started. it is possible to contain them. it is possible to see their momentum was disrupted and that is not to be discounted, by the way because it was the momentum to find aallowed them
way to encourage the sunni population of western iraq, to accept their brutal tactics and presence among them. the answer is they can be contained, not in perpetuity. this is an organization that has an apocalyptic, and of days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated full up to your question, can they be seated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in syria, the answer is no. addressedhave to be on both sides of what is at this time a nonexistent border. come when we have a coalition takes on the task of defeating isis over time. they will only truly be defeated when it is rejected by the 20 million disenfranchised sunni
that happen to reside between damascus and baghdad. it requires a variety of instruments, only one small part of which is airstrikes. requires the applications of all the tools, diplomatic, economic, information, military. >> talking about isil in syria -- my question is for both of you -- do you have any information that links the assad regime and isil? strikingime has been isil for the last two months. do you see yourself on the same and with the assad regime do you still believe assad is part of the problem or might become part of the solution in
the region? >> assad is very much a part of the central problem. i think it is well documented as to why. when you have the rule dictator -- brutal dictatorship of assad and what he has done to his own muchry which perpetuated of what has been happening -- he is part of the problem, as much of a problem as the central core of it will stop as to your question regarding isil and assad, they are fighting each other as well as other terrorist groups, very sophisticated terrorist groups in syria. >> he is absolutely part of the problem.
>> the charges of mission creep in iraq, going beyond humanitarian and protecting -- does the pentagon believe it has the authority -- have you talked to the general consul? do you need any additional authority going forward? the president has been very clear on mission creep. thats made it very clear he will not allow that. he has been very clear on what our mission is. we comply with the war powers have. how many people we consult with our counsel all the time