tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 2, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
criminal illegal aliens did the obama administration release? secretary saldana: in 2014, it was a little over 30,000. senator cruz: how many murderers? secretary saldana: in that year, sir, i can't remember the number right now. but i know that we had -- the statistic was said earlier four-year period, there were 121 persons who committed crimes. i can't provide you the number. senator cruz: how many rapists? secretary saldana: i am not sure right now. i have to pull that number. senator cruz: how many drunk drivers. secretary saldana: same answer. i can break that down for you. i think we are working on that right now. it's been requested before. senator cruz: yesterday, how many murderers did the obama administration release? secretary saldana: senator, i don't know the answer to that question. i want the american people to understand our job and our mission if i may. we don't release people
willy-nilly. we release people pursuant to these statutes and regulations. there are only a limited number of crimes that we are -- we are required to detain people. it is mandatory. they are spelled out here very clearly. many of them related to drug distribution and conspiracy. the rest of the people, as you know very well, the law requires us to release some of the -- a small percentage of the total. also the immigration courts have half a million case backlog, they have the proceedings they go through. they will order release because many of these folks challenge their bond or their detention. but the rest, and i think it's like 49% this past year, in the rest where i.c.e. has discretion, where this statute has given us discretion, we have very well trained, very experienced law enforcement officers who look at the entire case just like a magistrate
judge or a federal judge does -- senator cruz: ms. saldana. i want to note your testimony here, when i ask you how many criminals i.c.e. released in 2013, you are off by a factor of three. you said 30,000. the correct answer is 104,000. there were 68,000 criminals, criminal illegal aliens that i.c.e. declined to begin deportation proceedings against despite the fact as senator sessions observed, the federal law you are holding up there says they shall be deported, the obama administration refused to deport them. that's 68,000. in addition to that, there were 36,000 in deportation proceedings with criminal convictions that the obama administration released. i would note among those were 193 murderers with homicide convictions. 426 people with sexual assault convictions.
were over 16,000 criminal illegal aliens with drunk driving convictions. released by this administration because this administration refuses to follow the law. secretary saldana: those numbers i'm looking straight at them. you asked me, i thought, about 2014. that is 30,558. and the good news is at least that was down from 2013, when it was 36,000 -- senator cruz: you are admitting the 68,000 criminal illegal aliens that i.c.e. did not begin deportation proceedings, you add those together it's over 100,000. secretary saldana: that's right. all done pursuant to this statute that the congress has outlined. senator cruz: you heard the testimony from the victims' families. i introduced case law in the senate, a mandatory minimum of five years in prison for anyone apprehended with an illegal re-entry. does i.c.e. support case law?
secretary saldana: i sure would like to look at that. i'm not sure if it was introduced senator cruz: last week. secretary saldana: i'm willing to look at any proposal along those lines and consider and work with you -- to help our community as opposed to put roadblocks in the way in their community policing. senator vetter: and would you tell us what you would support in that regard right now? director saldana: i'd be happy to work with you with any legislation you would proposed. >> president had occurred of his convictions, he would look into the eyes of those who lost their sisters and brothers and in the administration would stop .eleasing murderers and rapists
it is within your power to follow federal law. and in this administration refuses to do so and that is unacceptable. thank you. thank you to you secretary for your work. i also know senator grassley had to step out, but i wanted to thank him for bringing together the first panel of witnesses. i thought that their testimony was moving and i know that from being a former prosecutor how difficult it can be for victims and families to come forward. i'm not sure if some families are still in the room, so i am thankful for you coming forward. i also wanted to thank senator find time -- feinstein for her statements, clearly there should have been cooperation and i think that it is important to
remember that there are some of us that are willing to look at policies and look at them in a way to figure out what best helps public safety. and the beauty -- deputy secretary, you talked about the work being done. i listened to the head of the major city chiefs talk about policy, cooperating with ice, that clearly did not happen. -- theye other sheriffs have taken that position and i understand that they are not going to and the mayor said that that did not happen san francisco. that they will not notify you when a repeat felon is being released. secretary saldana: it was a little over 208.
vary?they very -- saldana: tremendously. >> i think they are talking were lengthy, maybe they deported. someone who is a repeat felon like that, you want to bring them to the u.s. attorney's office. do you know how many have that policy that was as severe as the sheriff did in san francisco question mark -- san francisco? secretary said donna fest we talkedsaldana: about having the greatest impact in their communities and we have made real progress. as the secretary testified last been many of them have
detained. they will work with us in some manner. in some manner we are working with them. it just seems like any case like this it should be mandatory. trying toat i am grasp. and i know that the senator is trying to as well. secretary saldana: i think that pep covers that. these are severe and dangerous criminals. that we are targeting and that we are trying to work with and say can't we all agree on this criminal history. >> we had worked on a case when we had convicted a man on murder, it was a horrible case, he was from russia and he has been making request to go back and we have been saying no, and sometimes you do , maybe from family
members, oh send them back to the other country. it is an argument clearly for serving out sentences in the u.s. for public safety, but you also brought up the u.s. attorney office, they cannot handle all these cases. but with serious ones with a number of felonies, i would think that it would become a priority in these prosecutions. has there been discussion about this? yes.tary saldana: i have met with the deputy attorney general and discussed where we can work together to strengthen this. i have met with the board of immigration and the subcommittee and we have discussed specifically what can you do to help us make an impact. they seem very interested. >> i have been a supporter of comprehensive reform and there is focus on that bill, everyone
from engineers, two people getting green cards, there are many important things in that bipartisan bill, but you know the director is looking for more money for enforcement, do you think that that would be helpful as well? i am talking about from a public safety perspective. we heary saldana: something simply stated and you wonder why we get bogged down. putting aside public interest, you have to work on a better system. more comfortably. >> i would like to add to that. one issue that we have heard about this morning is the notion
that individuals who are here illegally, we do not know who they are. they are not registered. they are off the grid. both what the deferred action program is and more helpfully comprehensive reform provides is a way to know who those people are. , toold them accountable know they are in those instances where they commit crimes, that is one example of many where public safety would be promoted by immigration reform. >> the last thing i want to bring up is the program for vick comes of crime and we have worked hard on this. i know i have had many experiences with people who have been preyed upon because they thought they had power over them because of family members or something else could be deported
. at the program has been helpful in bringing these cases. could he speak to that -- could you speak to that? we often saldana: requested tvs is and i am happy visas in many in these cases stayed and apply for residency and ultimately citizenship and will make extraordinary american citizens. >> thank you, very much. we look forward to working with you. thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your willingness to talk to us today. i believe that the great those who have come
to the united states in violation of our laws have probably done so for sympathetic reasons. they have probably been living their lives aside from the legal manner in which they chose to enter the country, they are otherwise living goodbyes. think we can ever best them with the right to citizenship. it certainly cannot override the need that we have to ensure that u.s. citizens are protected from violence. including the type of violence that might result from someone who came here who should not have come here. someone with a known criminal record who has been allowed to remain here. i have spoken at length in other hearings and on the floor of the senate about concerns i have
about the use of pro-within the -- parole within the immigration law. that is a very narrow exception, one that allows someone to enter the country temporarily. governing parole is very specific points out that this needs to be narrow, for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit on the other hand. is meantorary parole for people to enter the country for temporary occasions, the need to get medical treatment, that would be an urgent reason to allow somebody to get parole. or if we are talking about significant public benefit we might add to that the hypothetical of somebody needing to come in and testify in a
trial. but these are temporary and they are time sensitive. the temporary nature of perl -- parole is important, because once you are granted it you have removed an otherwise present and significant legal impediment to gaining access to citizenship. granted abused or excessively or outside the framework of the law, this you can understand could really create a giant gaping hole. the president has cleverly spread the definition of parole wide enough to give recipients access to citizenship and circumstances in which citizenship would otherwise be nowavailable to them we are
seeing the president expand that program. as vice president biden announced in november, the department of homeland security state are-- establishing a program that would allow -- to get citizenship status under parole. i reiterate, that is supposed to admission, maybe for humanitarian reasons for public benefit, it is not a substitute for refugee status and should not be used to permit only relocate non-refugees to the u.s. where refugee status is not available. in aresident announced report last week that the department of homeland security will propose an expanded parole program for entrepreneurs. printers are valuable. we love them. in fact we have a lot of programs designed specifically
to help encourage entrepreneurs not just in the u.s., but to come from other countries. but any program that encourages entrepreneurs to come in to this country should be established by statute, bylaw, not shoehorned into a narrow exception that is meant to a lobby and administration to step outside the normal process only under extraordinary circumstances. so, miss rodriguez, do you believe that these programs are consistent with the limited intent and temporary nature of parole?perl -- rodriguez: these are programs that are meant to be limited. they are meant to either afford , permanent immigration benefit
nor are they meant to be utilized by everybody. i do not agree with your characters asian of the programs. >> but they are limited? rodriguez: that is correct. when we talk about the miners program that is a limited number of the visuals allowed to seek -- individuals allowed to seek parole, certain circumstances, and it is a temporary program, like you say. >> it is meant to be temporary , but when we look at the documentation for advanced i-131. there is a form it defines public benefit, which was understood to be the need of someone to come in and testify at a trial.
it defines that to include a semester abroad program, meeting with clients, do you think that that is a fair interpretation? fair to put those into public benefit and give people the right to enter the country? individualshese are who are participants any deferred action, not a perl program. they have the ability to temporary remain in the u.s. under a deferred action program. parole?y are you using mannerez: that is the that those individuals are able to reenter the united states. it permits them to temporary -- temporarily leave and return. a and when they return a have
n impediment to their pathway to citizenship lifted. rhetoric is: -- frederick us -- it removes an mpediment -- nine >> remove in a payment -- impeachment, is that correct? >> they need to qualify for whatever the basis is, for a visa or citizenship, this will not make them qualify. >> is a condition present. law,ave distorted the manipulated it beyond what the statutory textbook was supposed
to be, and that draws concern. they do. you senator lee. this is an important issue. better -- vetter? to say thank want you for the legislation that we will be bringing forward. says political law enforcement has to cooperate with immigration enforcement, so i think you, you have been very active on that. and the committee and others who are working with me on that. and hopefully we will move that soon in the committee. thank you to you both for your service. ms. saldana, the white house
through the press secretary recently suggested that the kate steinlee -- was made possible because the immigration bill was not passed during the last congress, do you agree with that? saldana: i decline to engage in this discussion, i am just an law enforcement and making sure that these laws are are enforced.ws i have no opinion one way or the other. i am focused on the job with the immigration laws and would prefer to work on that then on political questions. it is not advanced the ball advance-- it does not the ball forward. this, how is you
your action to block sanctuary policy through the enforcement program going to be any more effective than it has been through the secure communities program, obviously it has been an effective through that? senator saldana: lots of controversy. as we talked to more jurisdictions, they will see this more clearly. for example, one problem in this basiss that there is no to detain someone at the state or local level beyond 48 hours. 48 hours beyond what their underlying offense called for. have 48 hourswill notice before we release, unless we have probable cause, in which this case we have indications of
a true violation with evidence that we can share with the local jurisdiction. >> i am glad that we are finally doing this. if and when a local jurisdiction does not comply. saldana: i do not want to see their lives go -- can all agree about that, but right now, there is no consequence, no -- and nothing happens to these jurisdictions. if this is a brand-new day, what will happen to the local jurisdictions? saldana: i am looking at that.
>> to you do not know -- you do not know. saldana: we are going to talk about that, sir. the localerstand problems, i think i can help them better to figure out a solution. i am with the federal government and i can -- >> when they do not comply, will there be any negative consequences? andana: i will look at that we will see what we can do. the program has been in effect for three weeks, we just started. we asked for a chance. there were some victims families here who asked for a chance and their chance is gone in terms of their family member. this has been going on for years and you still are not prepared
to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence for those jurisdictions. when will that change? saldana: i presume when you all address immigration reform. >> -- saldana: the what, sir? >> now we're going to the political line. reform ismmigration not political, it is an essential effort. >> so congress passing that bill that you and the obama and the obama administers prefer, you do not think right now we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting federal law, right now there can be any negative consequences when they do not properly cooperate under existing federal law with immigration
enforcement? saldana: that is what i understand you are working on. >> you are working on it -- aren't you working on it? saldana: oregon has rolled against us on mandatory detainers. i am looking for to looking at legislation. i want a solution as well, sir. >> we have been asking for a solution for that about sanctuary cities for years. it has been absently no effort from the administration -- absolutely no effort from the a administration before. still today, after these tragedies, you are not prepared to say that you support any negative consequence to sanctuary city jurisdiction if they do not properly cooperate. i eagerly await you all to finally say that. to say that there needs to be
some consequence, because that is the only way it will stop throughout hundreds of jurisdictions. thank you. i offer you my assistance if you would like my input and respect to legislation that you propose to try to resolve this. input, what with a negative consequence be? saldana: these jurisdictions have their own albums to adjust. i think that you understand this sender and that is why i want to work with you. >> the biggest thing i understand is that you are not prepared as we speak, even after these horrible tragedies, to support a single negative consequence against a sanctuary city if they do not properly cooperate with immigration enforcement, that is unfortunately the biggest thing i understand. if that is incorrect, i am eager
to hear that. saldana: it is incorrect. whatever you propose with respect to legislation, i would like to work you on it to see what we can do to help communities instead of putting roadblocks in their way. >> will you tell us what you .ill support in that regard saldana: i would be happy to help you with anything that you suppose. -- perdue.produced e: this is an important crisis. there are only six reasons why
13 colonies got together in the first place. one of those was provide for the national defense. we heard from six families this morning and there are many state with similarwho have tragedies. we have to work together and solve this thing. we heard this morning that 014, many000 and two abou2 were released and subsequently arrested again after being released. those convicted criminals were because theyities let them go instead of deporting them. they released over 36,000 criminal and legal immigrants. almostllegal aliens had 90,000 convictions on their records, including 193 murder convictions and 16,000 drug driving convictions. always hold, and i know this is debatable number -- a
number, there were 36,000 walking the streets right now. i would argue that this is a national emergency. it is absolutely outrageous in my opinion. i don't think there are innocent parties in this debate. in my home state we had a 16-year-old kid killed. later, theears perpetrator of the crime is still at large. this is unconscionable when you hear the stories of these families, the we can bring thousands in here. i have a quick question directed at saldana. thank you for your service in texas and now in ashley. if you have this perpetrator in california -- you answered this policy,-- what is your how would you have treated this particular instance when it was
released back to the custody of the authorities in san francisco? saldana: the difference between a criminal warrant nd a detainer -- >> what if they don't? dana: we take them to court and say that individual has failed to honor this court order. that has weight coming from a federal judge. to us, it is a mutual benefit. the secretary testified last week on something he and i are
going to have more conversations about, and that is what more can be done to ensure -- we have a jurisdiction that is not cooperating, working with the bureau of prisons. --in that particular case this is not a trick question -- i am wondering if you're consistent about treating that particular perpetrator. just last week, one of your senior officials told the judiciary committee staff that i.c.e. would have done the same thing as the vop did, releasing that individual to the authorities in san francisco. >> that is correct, sir. this is how law enforcement typically works. we have a criminal warrant signed by a judge. we call the jurisdiction and say, is this still a live
warrant and are you going to pursue prosecution? depending on what the answer is, we work with that jurisdiction to ensure where we will get the biggest bang for our buck. is it the state or federal prosecution? that is where that corporation is a so important. i truly recommend against forcing these jurisdictions because that breaks relationships. >> i am not worried about relationships, i worried about results. right now we have cities not adhering to federal law. i just think that is a tremendous problem regarding immigration or highway issues. we just mentioned pep earlier. several senators sent a letter to secretary johnson. we still haven't received a response, by the way. we are concerned about that. i believe, as we said to the secretary, it is clear that pep will lead to the release of
additional criminals from custody. i'm concerned about what effect that has. let me ask you this. with regard to these communities, given that these communities did not previously honor i.c.e. detainers will cooperate with federal immigration at all, why do we have confidence they will work with us on this? >> because of the differences to the new program. i mentioned one earlier. we are removing the constitutional objection that we are detaining people without a basis. they have articles in their state or local sentence, and now we are saying don't hold them 48 hours in a typical situation, just give us a notice 48 hours before. we have some differences to communicate to them and to show them. i think it will make a difference in many cases. i don't remember if i shared with you, senator, i would like you to know this -- we have
identified the top jurisdictions that would have the greatest impact based on their illegal populations. 33 have already said they are going to work with us in one way or another. 11 are still in the process of considering. we're going to keep working there. that will have a great impact. sorry, we are a must at a time. theke to talk about exception related to gang membership in the potential loophole. this is pretty obvious to me. i like to get your opinion, isn't this another loophole for someone to falsely claim a threat, that if they were to go back home they would be under threat, therefore they should get asylum back here? >> it is certainly argued you should not be able to use her prior canal with the -- prior criminality.
we can certainly meet and talk more about solutions to the issue you have presented. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chair. and director rodriguez, thank you for your service. a lot of people have quoted some numbers. i want to make sure we unify around what are very important numbers. the center for immigration somees estimates there are 347,000 criminal immigrants at large today. according to a march 2 report, i.c.e. weekly detentions report, there is 168,000 convicted criminal immigrants who have final orders or removal and are
now at large in the u.s. in 2013, senator pretty mentioned there were some 36,000 aliens released. -- senator perdue. they represent 88,000 convictions. 193 homicide convictions, including one willful killing of a police officer with a gun. 426 sexual assault convictions. 303 kidnapping convictions. 1075 aggravated assault convictions. 1160 stolen vehicles. 9187 dangerous drug convictions. in 1670 drunk or drugged driving conditions. after they were released -- that is what they mounted. if my back of the napkin math is right, releasing
someone who is convicted of a homicide 2-3 times a week. after these people were released, 1000 were convicted of another crime following their release. this is a significant problem. it was stats were only 42013. for 2013. it's something that sanctuary cities need to recognize. senator saldana0-- saldana: quite a promotion, sir. [laughter] >> to a certain extent, it seems reading the not spirit of the law, some would say is a letter.
we need to be specific about the mandatory requirements. it seems to me part of that is because you are concerned with the relationship damage that could be done by forcing them. is that accurate? saldana: as i said, i local law enforcement relationships are vital. i mentioned homeland security in the distance -- homeland security investigations earlier. >> i understand that, but shame on them if they suddenly don't cooperate on these other matters of homeland security. we want to take a direct stand that they should obey the law. to me, we will do a favor here or cut them some slack so they can work with us -- that is their job. dir. saldana: just because i have worked here in law enforcement for over a decade, i
want to make sure you understand most of the jurisdictions work with us every day. thank goodness they do. let me set some context. i mentioned about a little over 200 jurisdictions that have passed some kind of ordinance not to work with us. there are thousands of jurisdictions that do already. i am very proud of my home state of texas that has 250 jurisdictions in it. relationships with 99.9% of those. please do not assume that these 208 represent the total number, the vast majority of jurisdictions out there. >> i understand. i do think we need to keep in mind that the numbers that i went through or significant. each and every year there are roughly the same sorts of numbers. this is a significant challenge. what i would consider that actor cities, sanctuary cities, shame on them. -- b ad actor cities.
they need to help you do your job. not because it's some sort of paper or accommodation, but because that is their responsibility. the last question that i have to this program. i asked the secretary when he -- here if he felt certain you may be familiar with a triple murder in charlotte 20 minutes from where i live -- he was granted the trade action, determined that he will have affiliation with gang violence. he was one of the cases that spurred your review of the other actions. are you absolutely certain that we have scrubbed those who have received different action and that we don't have another incident waiting to happen?
dir. rodriguez: and my surgeon? i am -- am i certain? me and my staff have faithfully run the daca cohort through databases to verify gang membership. i believe that label of gang member in that database is a reliable label. that gives us what we need to either deny them out right or to conduct further investigation. as we speak today, that doesn't mean with confidence that as of the date we did it at review that we were able to address all cases of gang membership. if we have a future cases where people become gang members or commit crimes, we will address those. we will terminate daca in the
manner that we have in other cases. >> thank you. thank you mr. chair. ms. saldana, in a letter i sent to you and chairman grassley, you mentioned one case in which the suspect did $10,000 bond, in which case he became obligated to report to i.c.e. upon demand. at the time, i.c.e. had not triggered his obligation to consummate. he was released from custody in january 2013, arrested for murder generate second, 2015. -- january 2, 2015, over two years. is there any context between i.c.e. and this suspect during that time? dir. saldana: he was in proceedings. he is involved with the immigration court.
whether i.c.e. had some kind of communication, i don't know, senator. >> do you know if anybody had contact with him? dir. saldana: i did not see that specifically. >> is that typical to go 2 years with seemingly no contact at all? dir. saldana: it can happen with the backlog in immigration courts. policy for triggering a convicted alien's obligation to report, you mentioned there was nothing that triggered an obligation to report. has that policy in changed in terms of triggers for reporting? in light of this case and others, has there been any change? dir. saldana: not that i am aware of, sir. >> how many times has i.c.e. revoked bail for those that have been put out on bail? dir. saldana: it happens with
some regularity. i can provide that to you for a specific period. >> one thing striking about this was the lack of corporation in coordination and even notification between federal and local officials. that i.c.e. is working to invalid a new initiative called the law enforcement notification system, or lens. you mentioned that lens has been deployed in 11 states, and full implementation expected by the end of the year. what is stopping that from being implanted in others 39 states? dir. saldana: we have to work with each state office that gets notices out to their counties and communities. some, like mine, have a lot of counties. it is complex. we have to make our systems compatible to talk. so we started with three states as test cases. texas being one of them.
it worked pretty well there. we expanded to the total of 11 states. there is a period of time in which you have to work out kinks, because we want to get this right. it's just the test program. we have now expanded it to the 11. we are liking what we are seeing and we will be there by the end of the year. >> is is being handled with more urgency now? dir. saldana: i would like to see it done earlier than the end of the year, so i will stay on it. i will assure you it gets done as quickly as we possibly can. dir. saldana>> you believe by te year, in all 50 states, we have better notification requirements? dir. saldana: yes sir. >> thank you. in director rodriguez's testimony, he mentioned 44,000 375 new requests were denied. 414 renewable request were denied. of these, approximately 44,000
denied request, how many have been deported? are 44,375 daca requests that were denied, and 414 denial request -- renewal requests have been denied. if someone is not able to access, they are still eligible for deportation. how many of those have been deported? dir. saldana: i can't give you a specific number. whether they are daca eligible or not, we look at hours the same way we do anybody else. daca doesn't give them a free pass. we have to look at them on a case-by-case basis. what is the next step to detain someone, what level of bond replace, when we release them, that kind of thing. it is done on the fact and circumstances surrounding that
individual, including history. >> but if they have an offense that makes them ineligible, you would assume that they are being looked at. can you give me any ballpark of how many of those have been deported of the 440, -- the 44,000 daca cases. dir. saldana: i can assure you we will look at that. i would rather not look at a ballpark. we will get that number to you. >> mr. sanchez was in the country illegally, had been deported five times. that means he was able to come back across the border illegally five times. obviously border security isn't something we are very concerned about in arizona. this committee is extremely concerned about it. there is one program that we have had, operation streamline in arizona, a shared
consequences program. it has helped significantly in eula. we have been able to bring repeat crossings down significantly. the department of justice seems to be now backing away from that program. what are your thoughts there? rodriguez: senator, i administered the immigration benefits structure. i don't operate a border security. >> i understand that. dir. rodriguez: i think commissioner curley will be able to address those concerns. >> they are serious concerns. we want to make sure the programs we actually have are working and continue. we have one that is working in arizona and are concerned that it is not being fully implanted. the fact that mr. sanchez was able to so easily return across the border five times in
california is very disturbing but not surprising, frankly. i thank you for your testimony. >> the streamlined program, i don't think either one of you operate that. but i hope will fight for it. backing away from it, as the senator said, is very much a retrograde step. 287-g, ms. saldana, you talk about corporate in with local and state officials, your homeland security department has to medically weakened the 287-g program which trains law-enforcement officers how to properly and legally assist the homeland security in carrying out its function. and whatpport 287-g,
is the status of that? dir. saldana: yes, i'm not sure what you mean in respect to weakening. we welcome any 287-g partners. >> i would ask you to check the records and see if there hasn't been a diminution of the 287-g program, which i think should be expanded regularly. dir. saldana: there has been, sir, but is not because of us not wanting that partnership. it's because jurisdictions have either withdrawn were not coming to the table anymore. >> we think it could be advanced, and should be. look, with the american people know and what the family of victims of violent crimes know is that this administration has consistently and steadfastly placed the goal of amnesty above the goal of public safety. time and time again, that's b een the fact. and you are just folks nares in that system. -- you are just functionaries in
that system. you are going by the rules given by the political leaders. and it's not right. it's wrong. we need to do more about that. this administration spent 1/10th of the effort on enforcement and protecting people from crimes and punishing people who work metals who violate our immigration laws rather than on amnesty, we would be a lot safer today. many of the people that have been injured, rob, or killed -- robbed, or killed by a legal aliens would be -- by illegal aliens would be alive today. that's just a fact. saldana is the head of the i.c.e. association, 7000 officers. they are the ones that filed a lawsuit against her predecessor saying that he was ordering them to carry out policies that require them to violate their
own to enforce the law. i have never heard of anything like this. the statements mr. rodriguez and 12,000 are has had, just stunning in that criticism of supervisors and political leaders. morale is down. and it's because we're not doing what they are paid to do. they know it. this is what mr. crane says. i.c.e. is crumbling from within. morale is at an all-time low. as criminal aliens are released to the streets and i.c.e. instead it takes disciplinary action against its own officers for making lawful arrests. it appears clear that federal law enforcement officers are the enemy, not those who break the law." he goes on to say, i.c.e. officers requested a meeting with president obama and are still waiting. in that time the
white house has met with big business, big labor, illegal alien activists, the ministration has wrapped up its nonenforcement directives, putting officers and the public in danger. every day, dangerous and violent criminal aliens are released back into our communities." that's the true facts of the situation here. you can do better if you had leadership that would let you do that. we ought to be inefficient where we can make real progress. dir. saldana: may i say something? that is one of the first things that caught my attention when i joined the agency late last year. effort inng a lot of trying to engage employees in
what they do. i will tell you this. i have met with mr. crane several times., i have met the head of the aflcio as well to discuss their concerns, our mutual interests. i will say, when i get out in the field -- this is somewhat inconsistent with the portrayal that you have just described of our employees -- they are so proud of the work they do and they are so proud of being able to focus on criminal convicted aliens in removing them from the country. they go about their business in good way.icient and and they take pride in that. i just want to mention that to you. that's a fact. that is what i have seen as i have traveled. believe thes: i facts show that this administration, in a host of ways, has failed to take actions
to help those compliant with their of. -- with their oath. mr. rodriguez, secretary jeh johnson, your supervisor testified recently before the house. you said that copy has of immigration reform had passed, -- if comprehensive immigration reform had passed, we would know who the criminals are. that is not so well said, because i don't think anyone that has a criminal warrant out for them with a history of criminal activity is going to register for any of these programs. in fact, mr. johnson admitted as much, saying most criminals do not subject themselves to criminal background checks. i agree with that. you are not saying, are you, that if we call for people to come in lecture on dac oa
executive amnesty, or people with records are going to walton and file with you -- and waltz in so they can file with you and be arrested? dir. rodriguez: some actually have, to their judgment. some with disqualifying records it did come and apply. part of my point also is that those who are not criminals, those who committed no other illegal act other than their illegal entry into the u.s., but are not murderers, robbers, or rapists, are now on the record. so that should they become criminals down the line, we know who they are. for the most part, i think you are right. your ordinary criminal may not register in the manner described. they know what the detriment is. i would also, senator, if i could invite you to tour a field office with me. if you did that, you would see
what i have seen, that our officers take pride in their work. they feel empowered in their ability to do their work. and the exercise their discretion and the chips fall where they will. meaning that if there's a case to be denied, they do that. i've seen them do it firsthand. sessions: regarding providing status to those in the country illegally, if you set it up that there are not in person interviews on people? experts tell us that in person interview is critical to a proper evaluation of a person who is applying for legal status. dir. rodriguez: and we do do in person interviews in cases that raise concerns. sessions: so how do you
know if it's going to raise concern if you haven't met with them? dir. rodriguez: we look through our files. at the time that we are reviewing a file, there is extensive information about that individual. we have experienced trained officers to identify if the kind of information about that individual that will warrant an actual investigation. sen. sessions: it has been set up so there will be very few in person interviews. he says that denies your officers the ability to make rational choices that can protect the public safety. so i guess you just disagree with him on that. dir. rodriguez: i respectfully do. sen. sessions: with regard to your process, is it true that over 95% of daca applicants have been approved? maybe 99%? dir. rodriguez: i wouldn't be able to tell you the specific percentages, other than to say there are significant numbers who have been denied.
sen. sessions: but you don't know what percentage have been denied? dir. rodriguez: i couldn't give you the specific number, but substantial. sen. sessions: would you say one less than 1/2 percent? you don't know? your the director of this program. me, whaters to percentage of being denied? dir. rodriguez: again, i couldn't tell you as i sit here before you. i know that a significant number have been denied because of these kinds of things. sen. sessions: i'm looking at a sworn statement in a lawsuit in texas that we have referred to. according to the most recent data i have seen, this is his quote, "according to the most recent data i have seen, it reports 99.5% approval rate for all daca applicants. the
approval rate is higher because usdis leadership, you, prevented fromration officers conducting case-by-case investigations. leadership has stopped proper screening and enforcement, and in so doing has guaranteed applications will be a rubber stamp for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud in places public safety at risk." i will ask you, that this process allow for foron-to-person interviews even a substantial minority? dir. rodriguez: when there are concerns that weren't such interview, yes, the process does allow for it. -- that warrants such an interview, yes. sessions: "uscis management
has unintentionally created a part -- a process that bypasses investigatory interviews with trained uscis adjudication officers." the way this work, i guess somebody sent in an e-mail, a document, is that what they do? and they are approved based on that? dir. rodriguez: there is obviously a lot of information that is collected. sen. sessions: how is that information collected? dir. rodriguez: there are specific items requested. there are requests for evidence that are subsequently sent to the requesters. there is a full suite of biographic and biometric checks to examine either criminal history or national security issues. that informs the entirety of the file. where those reins concerns, then yes. -- where those raise concerns, then yes. sen. sessions: "for example, new
uscis computer systems to a new screen applications known as transformation has as theto be a disaster agency has spent upwards of $2 billion for a system will eventually allow an alien, now referred to as a customer under uscis policy to upload their own information via the internet for adjudication purposes." information sent by a some $2 billion computer system internet, and there won't be an interview for most of the applicants -- isn't that correct? dir. rodriguez: no, i really don't agree with that premise at all, senator. a few things. one, we have turned the corner
on the transmission process. there is no doubt that historically there was a developed approach that was not working. we recently launched the replacement queen cart. that has gone a very well. it built a number of functionalities that we won't popeye -- that we will apply to many forms. the use of electronic filing as the means of receiving and adjudicating applications does not change which programs will have interviews associated with them. that is not set to change as part of the transformation process. look, it'sns: well not going to be in in person interview. they overwhelm and cannot do the kind of background check. you need to be defending the people's public safety. if you need more money to do this, you need to ask for it. if you want to rubberstamp the
process, keep doing it the way you are doing. aldana, the u.s. code provides, among other things, "a federal, state, or lcal government entity -- or local government entity may not restrict any government entity or official from sending to receiving from i.c.e. information regarding citizenship or immigration status lawful or unlawful of any individual." think that resolutions by city councils or state governments, or sheriffs, in certain jurisdictions, directing their offices to otherwise notified i.c.e. that they have arrested someone that is unlawfully in the country could violate, or would violate
section 1373? dir. saldana: all of that is part of litigation, senator. quite frankly, i think we have taken it efficient in litigation. -- taken that position in litigation. words,ssions: in other you are correct to say cities have to comply with this law. dir. saldana: yes, and again, is it more practical to work through all of this morass of litigation, or can we work with these jurisdictions to try and get them to cooperate? i think it's the latter. sen. sessions: i understand you are saying that. but forgive me if i am not persuaded. this has been going on for many years. in 2007, we had a debate about all of this. it was wrong then and it's wrong now. it's gotten to be 300 or so jurisdictions that are sanctuary
jurisdictions, out of what 17,000? some are very big cities. they have a very large immigrant populations. it's a huge matter, but most cities cooperate. hear, want to know what i complaints about the federal government enforcement from our law enforcement officers is that you won't allow them to help you. somebody and call your officers, nobody comes. nobody cares, nobody response. -- nobody responds. that is the big problem we have in the country. at any rate, i hope that you will understand that you're -- it's not going to change the situation. do you have any cities that have indicated they will make a change in the policy? dir. saldana: i mentioned numbers earlier, sir.
just as a matter of focus, we look at these 49 in particular. 33 are working. they have, and said they will work with us in some way or another. again, tailored to their needs. we have only had five that rapidly said of his, 49 no. we will continue working with them. sen. sessions: i'm sure after the events of all the last few, they should certainly be willing to listen about this. but i have serious doubts that we are going to see any change unless congress takes some action or this administration takes action. ms. saldana, one problem i know you have that i'm sure is frustrating to you is countries not taking back criminals that you have arrested in order -- or deported. can you tell us the status of that situation? dir. saldana: the department of state obviously has a vast interest in this. i work with the department of
state. i have met with the individual who oversees the relationship. closely toing very try and open doors. i went to china a couple months ago, beijing in particular. china has been a challenge for us. we've signed, together, they kind of founding agreement that they will actually have two people here to help process chinese going back to the country, repatriating from this country. that is some progress. but we continue to work with them. i've worked with south american countries. and eled guatemala salvador. we are continuing to work with my counterparts there to ensure, and we have found memorandums. sen. sessions: working with them is one thing. but this has been going on for
years also. many years. how long have you been in office? dir. saldana: seven months. sen. sessions: so i can't blame you for all of this going on. but i understand you have professional training and understand the work. actionse powers iand the u.s. government can take without legislation that would put pressure on these countries to accept back individuals who we have ordered deported? the saldana: this is in province of the to permit of state, because it -- the department of state, because it relates to international countries. but yes, i understand they have some authorities to do that. as you know, senator, it's a very complex picture when it comes to international relationships. one agency's issues may not hold
sway over the bigger picture in the relationship with that country. sessions: a few years ago, i was outraged by all of this. i offered legislation that would visas fromucing countries that don't comply. doesn't it cost you a lot of money and create huge time ealing withs anin d situations where a country wants take back one of their own? dir. saldana: it's a great challenge, sir. that is where we face issues, like el salvador for example, we can't get papers or core operation. -- papers were cooperation. sessions: if a country won't take them back, and a year goes by? dir. saldana: i believe it is
more than 180 days. we can extend that period of time, but there's a point at which we have to release them. sen. sessions: that takes a lot of your office or an agent's time and effort. you have to help people in high quality persons while you are waiting on this instead of being able to support them properly. dir. saldana: yes, that's correct. sen. sessions: i believe it was the customs chief in years gone by, when he set a border down with mexico over some disagreement over the response abilities. it caused quite a stir. he just closed the border. na,ould say to you ms. salda i think it's time for the state department in your department to stand up and say, we are not going to accept this anymore. you don't accept back properly people that we deport, you are
going to suffer serious consequences. any relationship that deals in visas is a reciprocal relationship, isn't it? if we accept people, then they agree to take them back. likewise, if they accept individuals from the u.s. into port them, we accept them back. -- and we support them, -- deport them, we accept them back . sorry,ldana: sir, i'm your way about my knowledge when it comes to the state department. sessions: you have to stand up to the department. it looks like we all are. we don't have the money to bicker with these countries for years and years and not get this matter settled. we'll try to work on that. i think legislation would be appropriate, too. although it is not necessary. if the president and stick to
permit stood up --and state department stood up on it, it could be fixed. additionalt questions for the record. we are having some problems getting answers to our records. mr. rodriguez, when do you plant to send us -- you plan to send us your responses for the march hearing on oversight of your agency? dir. rodriguez: as soon as possible. i thought we had satisfied all of this requests. we will make sure to get those to you as soon as possible. sen. sessions: i don't believe we have. dir. rodriguez: yeah, if there are outstanding request, i am not happy about that. we will work quickly to respond. sen. sessions: may the record open for one week. and if there is nothing further,
-- but i will say one more thing. both of you are good law officers. you know how the system works. and i hope you know that things are going as well as they should. a lot of that is because of administration policy. at some point, you will have to decide whether you're going to execute that policy or not. some of the policies, i think, cannot be defended. i respect your integrity and i appreciate your commitment to your country enter service to your country. the hearing is adjourned. dir. saldana: thank you. >> from july to first, a hearing
-- from july 1, the setting from the-- it covered a number of immigration enforcement issues. now it is your chance to call us with your thoughts on immigration enforcement. the number is on your screen. democrats. you can see the contact for social media. if you are on twitter, tweet us at cpsan or leave us a post on your facebook page. we wanted to update one of the stories you heard at this hearing. this from reuters today, the headline "parents of woman shot in san francisco file wrongful death claims." the picture from the hearing
with the father of the murder victim and his testimony. the story, the family of woman shot dead on the san francisco. july filed wrongful death claims tuesday against the sheriff and two federal agencies, citing negligence and other errors in the handling of an undocumented immigrant accused of killing her. she was gunned down, apparently at random july 1 as she walked arm in arm with her father along the city's waterfront. a convicted felon who had been deported of the u.s. to mexico five times is facing murder charges in connection with her death. the gun used in the crime had been stolen from the car of a federal law enforcement ranger. reuters,at's from updating the story. you heard testimony in the hearing. let's go to your calls. glenn joins us from freeland, michigan on the line for independence.
--independents. caller: i agree with senator sessions. i'm glad this issue is bringing it up. i would like to thank donald trump for that. orwellian, most of them are documented, they just have forged documents, fake social security cards, kind of stuff. fraud would be a better way to refer to the people here illegally. host: thanks for calling. up next is a republican caller from mobile, alabama. caller: yes, i am very much for the enforcement. i think it is very sad what is allowed to happen in this country. i'm against sanctuary cities.
support of the enforcement. thank you. guest: thanks for calling. a number of issues at this hearing from july. sanctuary cities, border enforcement's, border security. the daca program. your thoughts today on what you think about how the u.s. is doing regards to immigration enforcement. should it be beefed up? akita on the line for democrats. caller: hi, as far as immigration enforcement. i feel like they are not doing enough, especially in the prison system. what you said about the guy going to mexico to get incarcerated. they don't do enough about that in the prison systems. they don't really talk about immigration, even though it is
hanging in the air every day. i have correctional officers in the family as well. they are very lax on immigration enforcement. i think they should be more proactive about it as far as going out and getting petitions, getting these mad murderers off the street. they are very violent. that is what i would like to say. thank you. host: thanks for calling. talking about getting folks off the street. this story from the los angeles times this week, making news. immigrant roundup, 244 immigrants were arrested in a 4 day sweep across southern california. more than 240 people were taken into federal custody last week across southern california after a 4 day sweep for immigrants with criminal records in the country illegally. enforcement action ended last thursday, with 244 for nationals
in the custody of immigration and customs enforcement. the majority of them was at least -- with at least one felony conviction, according to authorities. carla, you are up next: from davenport -- calling from davenport, iowqa on the republicans line. sentences wereve those who have been deported back to the country and come back in, i think the sentence should be much higher than what they are. i understand it's 18 months, whatever, 36 months. i thinks set up higher, it would be quite a deterrent. what is the meaning of deportation? it means nothing if you can keep coming back in and going back out. getting your thoughts on immigration enforcement this
afternoon. great in danville, illinois. go-ahead. -- greg in danville, illinois. caller: i want to talk about border security. i would like to take advantage of our drone technology. i would like to see thousands, maybe tens of thousands that would be spread out across our border instead of relying just on our border agents. that is something i would like to consider. that's my suggestion. thank you. host: thanks for calling. robert you are up, line for independents. caller: i remember the sanctuary city. i am scared to death. i'm a vietnam veteran and was wounded twice. every day there are gunshot all around my house, in the backyard, on polaski. these mexicans and these
illegals in these people with guns are shooting. i served for my life. what are we going to do about the guns, immigrations? on the only white person on the block. can you give me an answer? host: what do you think we should do about the sanctuary city issue? caller: i think it's against the law. host: okay. phil, you're in florida on the republican line. what do you think? caller: i got married two years ago to a chinese woman, i spent $10,000 to make it legal here in the u.s. i feel as though all these people coming in here illegally should all be shipped back to wherever they came from. court,ould be taken to -- they should not be taken to
court, they should be shipped away. they have broken the law. i don't know why we keep having debates over it. they all broke the law, they should all be shipped back. host: do you think shipping everyone backs poses a logistical challenge? let alone a money challenge? run, it wille long be cheaper for us to do that, to be honest. i don't know how you would go illegals,ing all the but when you do find that they are illegal, they should be automatically shipped back. host: okay, thanks for calling. linda on the line for democrats. caller: what i would like to say our jobs goingre to mexico and our jobs coming here? who are working the jobs over in mexico? why don't we stop letting ford, chrysler, whoever, our big
automobile companies go overseas anywhere and then sell their cars back to us? the u.s. has to stop letting this happen. we just have to stop it somehow. host: terry joins us from fort lauderdale, florida, on the line from republicans. what you think about the challenge to enforce immigration laws? caller: i have one question. here in the u.s., if you break the law, and you are a citizen of this country, and they want to lock you up, they lock you up. but yet if you are from another country, and you commit murder, and rape, you're given a free pass. i don't understand why the citizens of this country are being treated that they are the
criminals when the criminals that are coming in are the ones they are releasing continuously to break the law. host: david in beaver, west virginia on the line for independence. caller: i'd like to make a comment. the problem we're having an immigration, i think it is an invasion. the number one priority of the federal government is to protect the homeland. that is no possible way all the people coming across this border are here to work. there is no possible way that we can envision the intent of these people coming across the border, why they're coming across the border. so our national security is an issue here. i feel that we absolutely have got to close the border off and
to deport at all costs. we have no idea what the true intent of these people are. thank you. host: thanks for calling. many of these issues prominent in the 2016 presidential campaign. many stories coming in, this one from the washington post. 3 in 4 iowans support donald trump want to deport all illegal immigrants. you heard several calls about folks who wanted to deport illegal immigrants. newly released numbers from the des moines register revealed not only the clear differences between those who support trump and the other 16 gop candidates, hasthe moguls call resonated with certain sectors of the electorate. meanwhile, the story from new jersey, immigration activistss black fedex plan.
-- activists blast fedex plan. chris christie's suggested that the country use fedex technology to follow people on visas is c rude and moving further to the right to gain supporters. back to your calls. peter joins us from florida on the line for democrats. your thoughts about immigration enforcement. caller: good afternoon. think you for the opportunity. when i would like to express should be offered for those waiting for 2-3 years. the ones that go across the border and have babies here, of course we have to do something about that. we have two employees, if possible -- we have to employ
the national reserve on the border and definitely improve the immigration department. there is someone that wants to do it the right way, but they are waiting and waiting. it is a good idea to come up with. quick sounds like peter broke up so we will move on to san antonio, texas. all on the republican line. -- paul. i believe the commander-in-chief, i'm a prior service member the navy, has to come inhe borders here and plant winter cells all over the united states. it is a big issue. with all the income they have available to track these people,
it is amazing the border security is so weak like it is. what he is trying to do personally i believe he is trying to start a race war between whites and blacks and latinos and cause basically a civil war. term in he gets another office. i think it is a real serious political horse. ist they will have to do reform a lot of the immigration. go navy. have a great day. >> thank you for calling. a couple of programming notes to pass along. now,g up half an hour from visitsspan cities tour wheeling, west virginia. we will visit the national road, the first major highlight told
by the federal government. learning about senator joe mccarthy's amos enemies from within. your way 6:00 eastern on c-span. ,ater on at 8:00 eastern time secretary of state john kerry from earlier today in philadelphia speaking about the iran nuclear agreement. today he said congress returning -- rejecting the deal would be a self-destructive blow to the nation's credibility in leadership. 8:00 eastern time tonight on c-span. some quick information about the congressional schedule on the houseboat. minority leader nancy pelosi wrote a letter to colleagues saying this speaker's office has informed her debate on the iran deal will likely begin the morning of wednesday, september 9 and be finished by the house
by friday, september 11. a schedule update we just learned about today. row to the white house. we show you an interview with democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton with -tv in manchester, new hampshire that took place on july 28. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. i am josh. tonight we will be noting for secretary clinton sandlot all of the key issues. i will ask the candidates questions, and after break we will go to the studio's audience -- studio audience. before we do any of that, looking at the candidates biography. let's hillary clinton was born in 1947 in chicago. hillary clinton was born
in 1947 in chicago. she received her undergraduate degree in chicago and graduated from yale law school. lawyer for the congressional committee investigating president nixon. she then moved to arkansas where she taught law and ramp legal clinton -- ramp legal clin ics. she met someone by the name of bill clinton. he read for president in 1992 and again in 1996. in 2000, she was elected to the u.s. senate, becoming the first woman senator from new york. she then -- then served as secretary of state under president obama. she want to raise the minimum wage, make college affordable and make policy -- make tax breaks for businesses. let's get right to it. do you ever think why didn't i just get a yahoo! e-mail accounts? >> yes, actually i have. i thought was convenient
has turned out to caused inconvenience. instead of diving -- dividing up i work account. my daughter and everybody in the other. josh: just a matter of convenience more than anything else? does the matter of convenience but does not seem like it now. for those of the people that have concerns, what do you tell this was tell them never anything since i mean or receive that was marked classified. there is a whole different system you deal with on what is called the high side. i can tell people what is happening now is at a debate back and forth inside the government, because i said release all of my e-mails, let the public event, that is part of the freedom of an nation act
process. to go throughle them. that would be true for anyone. i'm glad so many of the accusations in the inaccuracies have been cleared up in the past week cap i want people to lenders and this was something others had done, and i did it, and when i was asked to help with the record-keeping in the state department, i gave over 55,000 pages to make sure they had everything they needed. now i would be happy to have the public see them, too. josh: talking about your time as secretary of state. republicans will probably pick away at that resume and point to things like and ghazi that took place under your watch. how do you ask lane -- explain some of the decisions that were made? there werelinton: many important decisions made when i was secretary of state. is known tonghazi
many americans because we lost four americans. tragedy, notible only for the families of the four men lost, but obviously for our country, as it is whenever we lose anybody, either uniformed military or serving on the civilian side. i think we have had incidents like this over the course of our history. when president reagan was president we had a terrible incident in beirut where we lost hundreds of employees at our embassy. instead of turning it into a partisan issue, people said what are we going to do to protect our people? when my husband was president we have the bombings in tanzania and kenya. we lost many people, about a dozen americans and many other kenyans who worked at her embassy. in fact, president obama has gone to the site to pay his respect.
again, we said, it is a dangerous world and we send people into harms way, let's learn from that. so what i did when this happened let'swatch was i said take responsibility in figure out what we need to do better and how we learn from it. i regret it has been turned into a partisan issue. there has been one independent investigation, a number of investigations by republicans and democrats. obviously people have tried to understand what happened and why. i said let's follow every legitimate recommendation to make our people safer, and that is what i think we should be doing. a major issue is the iran nuclear deal. where do you stand on this? secretary clinton: this is a tough one, because no one should don't.ran, i certainly i worked hard when i was secretary of state to put into
place the crippling sanctions that led iran eventually to the negotiating table. i think the agreement on balance is in our interest and the interest of the region and safety anderms of security because it puts a lid on the iranian nuclear weapons program that gives us time, the opportunity to form a coalition to deal with all the other bad things they do. they support stabilize them, threaten israel, support hezbollah and other proxies. i think we have to go into this very clear eyed. as president, i would enforce it to the letter and make absolutely clear anything we need to do we would do. on the timing of the inspections we have much more access to the programs than we ever have before, but obviously there are some limitations, and we need to push the envelope as far and
hard as possible. from my perspective, it is better to have had the agreement to put the lid on then to try to deal with all of the other bad things they do while they are still pursuing nuclear weapons. josh: would you vote for this as is, or would like to see adjustments? secretary clinton: i would vote for it as is. remember, it affect international agreement. it was really hard getting russia and china to sign-up for the sanctions and getting the rest of the world to enforce them. we cannot alone prevent iran from doing something is a -- it is intent upon doing something that the world together gives us the best chance. so i would support the agreement. josh: how would your approach as commander-in-chief different when it comes to islamic terror, isis, then what we've seen that at the current administration? secretary clinton: i have had some differences.
they are publicly known. i was in favor, along with general petronius and leon panetta to try to arm moderate rebels against the rouge on -- regime early. i thought it was important to figure out who was who in that situation. what wouldreally say have happened. i was in favor of doing that. i think where we are now is number one we have to acknowledge isis is a threat. it is a threat to us because it does dominate territory, which gives them a broader reach. i do uses the internet to direct attacks. we have to take it seriously. i think what the administration -- administration is now doing, building a coalition against isis, getting the iraqis to stand up after they allowed the one we train to fall apart -- all of that will be important.
the united states has some assets but we should not use our own soldiers to fight that war. josh: a quick break and then we will get to the studio audience. stay with us. josh: welcome back to our conversation with the candidate series. tonight's guest is former secretary of state hillary clinton. i will jump in if needed. for now, our first question coming from dan bergeron. great to see you again. this past april was the two-year anniversary of the gun proposal that called for criminal background checks strictly for online sales. my very important question, what would clinton administration due to successfully close the loophole? secretary clinton: first of all,
i supported what senators mansion and to me for trying to do. it was a bipartisan piece of left -- legislation. those are hard to come by piece of legislation and a great commitment they made. i will do everything i can to bring it back and advocate for it. we have just seen another example of a man mentally ill who killed the young women in the theater and lafayette, louisiana. just cannot go on. we cannot continue to allow people who are domestic abusers, mentally unstable, and who frankly, could be terrorists, to get access to guns. the man who killed our marines of the sailor was someone who also raises serious questions for me, how he got a hold of a weapon when you look at some of the things he was saying on his internet communication.
-- in favor of universal background checks. i will speak out before i president and when i am president. i will try to do what i has been successfully did, which is to get successful gun control. josh: would you allow recruiters with a trained in these firearms to arm themselves on u.s. soil echo a big debate right now. -- to arm themselves on u.s. soil? secretary clinton: it is a big debate. there was a first executive order to not have people armed on military bases. i would have to listen closely to why the military has a different opinion, and i would want to be frightened we found by what they are advising me. they are the expert, and i would want to support that. josh: very important question in new hampshire. name is cameron, and i am in recovery from drugs and
alcohol. what i want to know -- i will start off by saying over 300 people died from overdose here in new hampshire. you may be familiar there is a heroin epidemic of sorts going on. -- no would like to go is is what are you going to do as president to help address they her when epidemic in new hampshire and other parts of the country where local resources have been stretched too thin? you mean clinton: thank you first of all for being brave enough to come forward and talk about your life and asked that question. i think i join everyone here in wishing you the very best as you continue with your recovery. you have taken the first step, and i hope you are successful going forward. you are him young man, a bright future, and i hope you get the help and support you need in order to be a successful recovery person. secondly, i have been talking
about this since i started my campaign. the very first event i did as a candidate in key new hampshire at a very small cafe, a retired doctor asked me what i was going to do about the hair when -- in new epidemic hampshire. i heard the same thing about mess and pills in iowa. the rate of death by overdose is increasing tragically. last year we had more deaths by overdoses than automobile accident in our country. here is what i want to do as president. theve been consulting with people like yourself who have had experience and now trying to stay clean with experts and who have lost friends and family to overdose. we have to get back into the business of educating business.
i remember nancy reagan with the just say no campaign. it was important at the time trying to educate young people and parents. i want a very broad-based education information campaign. some jump people -- young people do not understand the risks. when a young person says he or she is ready, they want help, very often they cannot find help . were you able to find help when you first started looking for it? where did you finally get help? reached out to serenity place in manchester. federal funded through and local subsidies. it has very much to help me. i am now and transitional living. thankary clinton:
goodness for serenity, but we do go.have enough places to very often something terrible happens when someone is looking for help. if we had as many people dying from drug overdoses who were dining of the disease, remember how excited everyone got about the terrible disease ebola. you can bet we would be totally focused on how to help people. we need to bring the same focus dealing withs to drugs and alcohol and other forms of substance abuse. i want to do what i can to help in new hampshire and across the country. josh: thank you. social media question. are you on facebook? secretary clinton: of course. bush and clinton
families have been involved in presidential campaign for over 20 years. d you think that is good for a political system? --do you think that is good for the political system? secretary clinton: obviously some people have more experience or other kinds of political support, but you can get out there and run. look at all the candidates this time. people come from all walks of life and different backgrounds. i think it will be up to the voters to decide. -- husbandpresident is a really good president and i will try to make that case to the american voter. josh: have you bridge the political gap? it is a big question. secretary clinton: when i was a senator i work across the aisle. one of the people i worked with, lindsey graham running for president on the other side. there is no substitute for building relationships. i wouldn't go anywhere anytime to talk to anybody about how we could find common ground.
i know it is not easy, but i know it is doable. i would be inviting people all the time in meeting people all the time, because you never know when you might find an agreement. think that is part of what is missing right now. people did not socialize and spend time together. you will not get people to agree with you all the time. looks like we might finally get planned theanned -- highway construction. that cannot happen unless people cross the aisle. going to our audience. take it away. >> what do you see as a priority for the department of that the combat troops for the two wars are back home. it is ay clinton: really good question. i served on the armed services committee, and i think we have to transition from a defense --
defense department focus on a traditional threat to one that is much more flexible and agile and able to deal with the new threat we face today. for example, i think we will see an increasing use of special forces that will be able to deal with the more difficult problems thanmuch smaller basis sending tens of thousands of our young men and women into combat. i think we have to do much more in the arena of intelligence and surveillance, and using the incredible skills our military members have to support coalitions like what we are doing against isis. we have to be able to fight wars . we have to have and may be enough to defend us and commerce. we have to have an air force that is advanced enough to deal with some of the new threats, what we see in isis, but also,
we have to be smart about looking at cyber, something i think will increasingly take up time of our military. back ando take a step do a plan for the 21st century. josh: one of the audience members wanted to ask you about climate change. a big announcement this week. what is your plan? it is a big issue in this race. what is realistic? secretary clinton: i think what is realistic to start by setting .igh goals i think by the end of my first term we could as a country have half a billion solar panels installed, and i think by the end of my second term we could have enough clean, renewable energy to power every home in america. people say, how will we ever do that? but if we look at what some states have artie done, we can see the path forward.
iowa already getting more than 30% of its energy from wind. think about that. that is not far from upping it even more. the place i went to to make my announcements, they were using solar, and they were using geothermal. were heating and cooling the facility. if we put the right tax incentive in, and i believe we can pay for it by transferring the $60 billion spent over 10 years on oil and gas production to wind, solar, geothermal and advanced biofuels, clean energy, please can meet those big goals. i will talk more about my specific plans as we go forward. if we took the tax incentive away from fossil fuels it would. josh: we have been asked this a
lot. i will try to pin you down. yes or no on the keystone pipeline? i cannot clinton: answer it. i was there and had a role in it. this is likely to be an issue that no matter what the president decides will be the subject of a lawsuit. i am not in a position to in any way interfere with or comment on the decision until it is made without creating problems down the road, and i just won't do that. i know people are anxious to get me on the -- on the record yes dozens of i answer dozens of questions i cannot answer because of my prior official role. back to the audience. >> i met you at my daughter's high school graduation, i am sure you remember. do you support the policies of sanctuary cities?
secretary clinton: i support the underlying idea that law enforcement, in order to catch criminals has to be able to communicate openly with immigrant communities. what i do not approve of is what happened in san francisco, because if you are going to have where lawtuary cities enforcement will tell the immigrant community you won't get in trouble if you report the and yourape, burglary, are an otherwise a law-abiding citizen, that is one thing. but where the federal authorities have said tell us if this guy shows up again and you don't do it, that is not right, and i do not support that. josh: time is flying. not one of your supporters -- i yourto point out one of
supporters in nashua. i said what do you like about hillary clinton? she's that she is the mother of the world. you must feel a tremendous amount of expectations on your shoulders in the campaign. secretary clinton: i do. maybe it is because i am a mother and now a grandmother. i really think we need a president that will make them feel like we are part of the american family again. i mean that with all my heart. i think we have got to divided, too many barriers whether they are partisan or geographic separating us, and certainly we have seen problems with race and ethnicity and all the rest of it. it does not mean we will agree. we have strong disagreements particularly on politics.
that is all fair game. i grew up with the republican father and we had arguments at the dinner table practically every night but a band of the day he is someone who wanted to solve problems, to. that is what i think a good parent does. ,hen you are raising a child there are so many tough decisions you want to make. at the end of the day you want to give that person love and support and the discipline and direction that will make him or her successful. and our country today i want everyone to feel like we are all in this together. to me, that is what it is all about. that is how i would approach the job. josh: how do you relate yes i you have lived a life unlike anybody else ever probably. secretary clinton: probably because i did not start living the life until i was in the 40's. the life i lead that form to me as a person is a very
middle-class person with a. businessmen and a saber extraordinaire. he was a navy veteran. andom had had a miserable, then -- neglected childhood and she cared deeply about education and invested in me and my brothers, so i feel like i was formed many years before i showed up in public life. i always worked hard and taking responsibility. i don't forget where i came from. that voters ask you about quite a bit. that is always time for. coming up in the candidate series, rick santorum will be on the show. now, don't forget to catch us on wmur.com. thank you for joining us. >> the c-span cities tour visits literary and historic sites across the nation to hear from
local historians, authors and civic leaders every other weekend on both tv and c-span3 american history tv. this month with congress on summer recess, the cities at 6:00c-span each day p.m. welcome to wheeling, west virginia, on american history tv , located in the northern panhandle of the state, it was the first capital and known as the friendly city. due to the location along the , it girl --o river boomed as an industrial hub in the earlier 20th entry. with the help of our comcast cable partners, or the next half-hour we ask for the history, starting with the first federally funded road, which went right into the city.
>> the first project funded by the federal government for late production was the national road that extended from maryland to wheeling, virginia. one of the reasons for that was ohio had become a state in 1803, the country is moving west, and we needed to find a way of tying the new western areas in with the capital. the easiest way of doing that was to put in a road. that's road will eventually extend from baltimore,