hand what the u.s. attorney's current policy is. >> i would just note that operation streamline was included in the 2012-2016 border patrol strategic plan, so it's part of your departments plan. and i would hope we are working closely with the department of justice to make sure that their actions are in line with that plan. ..

issued against him for complaints of harassment and one woman feared for her life because he did kill her plenty of times and pointed a gun at her boys ran here two years after his release, three days after the second injunction was issued, he was alleged to have committed this murder. were you aware of the civil injunctions demand? >> i don't know whether officials at i.c.e. were aware of the civil injunctions. as i said earlier that case is definitely a tragedy in the individual should not have received daca and should not abandon the daca program. as the result of this case we have got direct iraqi review. i don't know the answer. >> excuse me she wasn't in daca.

he was just a slated for removal and then posted bond. >> i'm sorry senator. i have my cases confused. i thought you were referring to another individual. i don't know the answer to your specific question. >> give a policy where you work with local law enforcement to find out if there's any civil injunction against individuals to post bond? >> well, i do know that those in removal proceedings when they are evaluating for release there ought to be a background check conducted. there should be and i believe there isn't a valuation of race or danger to the community, just like criminal justice system. if there is some kind of procedure like that, it's failed miserably at this time. i would just ask a i.c.e. had

been aware there is to injunctions against an individual like this would i.c.e. have taken action against him? >> i don't know the answer to your specific question, but we will get you that. >> i would like to find out if there is the policy was some communication between local law enforcement a i.c.e. with regard to civil injunction against individuals like this. can you make me aware of that and if not and via some kind of remedy for that? >> yes. >> thank you. i see my time has expired. i'll just mention one thing quickly. ports of entry staffing with we have committed to 2000 new agents of the border of customs and border protection the blue

uniforms we've got to make sure they are hiring and i hear that it's going more slowly with family thought it should. is there any plan to speed that up and make sure we have the staffing better infrastructure. we've got to make sure the staffing levels that they are. >> the answer to your question is yes. i agree with their plan to speed it out. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome secretary johnson. pleasure to see a few thank you rework an immigration enforcement and express my regret that we could not pass the bipartisan immigration reform bill through congress entirely that would have made your job a lot clearer and simpler. significant responsibility for the immigration mess we are in now with congress, for failing to pass the senate bipartisan bill, which i was a strong supporter of. i would like to talk with you

about cybersecurity. the majority leader has announced he will try to have cyberweek on the senate floor. a lot of activity in the house. we have bipartisan bills that are pending on information sharing and debate communications providers on agency public reporting of the cyberthreat to increase public awareness of coordinating national notification with companies data breaches and updates of criminal penalties. when we first were working on comprehensive cybersecurity legislation, another main piece of the effort was on the critical infrastructure piece. now what i hear quite widely is that the dhs led framework

oddness that is pulled together a great number of critical infrastructure industry sectors is going very well and as a result of that there is no immediate pressure for legislation in the area. now there may not be an immediate need for legislation in that area, but of all the different areas i mentioned where there will be legislation protecting our privately owned critical infrastructure is probably the most significant national security element. so i am interested in getting your assessment of how that process is going and when you think it might be appropriate for congress to begin looking at

legislating in that area. i expect the executive process will yield recommendations as to what should be done next and i don't know what time frame you feel you are on towards that goal. >> senators, the framework process was in lieu of denny hastert to legislate. i share your assessment of what you are hearing that the framework process is going well. it has been well received in the private sector and seems to be working pretty well. i also want to applaud those in congress who are active in cybersecurity legislation. i am largely very supportive of the bill that passed the house last week sponsored by chairman mccall and others.

i think that frankly some legislation is better than no legislation and i think information sharing and private sector and the government is crucial. any efforts to promote and endorse that is crucial. i also believe a form of immunity limitation several criminal and civil liability for those who share cyberthreat indicators with the department is crucial and i blew the national data breach notification requirement is also very important and i am pleased we are active legislatively in those areas. >> in terms of your precise question, i haven't thought about it the way you fasted. it is a thoughtful question worthy of a thoughtful answer. let me consult -- i would like to consult my community and get

a thoughtful answer of that. >> i think there is a bipartisan send them a framework process run by dhs has been effective, has achieved significant national security goals and has enjoyed the support cooperation of the year. all of that is the good news part. the question is is it enough and is there a time when implementing on it will require action from congress and how far out you see that coming because when it is that important asset protection of critical infrastructure, we want to be able to act pretty rapidly. being prepared if it is next year. a lot of conversation has to take place on the issue. very strong bipartisan support but it is not an easy one. a preview of coming attractions would be very good.

my second question is in the same area and i would like to ask you, even urge you, to consider what the structure in the executive branch for addressing cybersecurity concerns looks like. there's an awful lot of division and sequestration in the old sense, not the budget sends of effort within the department of justice it is divided into two separate sections, criminal and national security appeared on the investigative side between fbi and secret service with other agencies have anything smaller pieces if you look at the data, you have a very well-regarded facility. the fbi has the mci gts. the administration has just

announced the cyberthreat intelligence integration center and from our side of the executive divide, this looks a lot like multiplicity and confusion. when you consider the scope of the cyberthreat, the fact we have an agency like dea dedicated exclusively to narcotics trafficking in an agency like a cf dedicated exclusively to alcohol, tobacco, firearms and bombs and no specific dedication of a single agent b. to this rapidly emerging and dangerous cyberthreat, i do think we have more work to do to set up the administrative structure that will allow us to be most of the good and i urge you to consider that work with our dm doj to think five years ahead.

every six mr. secretary, there is a new wrinkle in the administrative budget for doing this and send new announcement is made about some new agency or some new future and we need a long-term strategy. i'll quite happily. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. i would share that learning and note the department is conducting a major review of cybersecurity vulnerability. we don't have to spend a lot of money but it goes throughout the entire government and the more record and made our effort to learn how to technologically protect our systems, we save money and make america a safer place. >> to record your point on the military side, dave cyber command and then sat at the top of any very coherent administrative structure for

taking the cyberissue of making sure this address and a direct and comprehensive way. if you take the clarity of the military side and try to apply to law enforcement, it is very scattered and i know there's lots of turf issues but it just doesn't look like we've got it right yet. >> thank you. may i comment? >> briefly a member will go to the other senator. >> is a former lawyer for the united states military come is the first time i've heard anyone refer to the dod structure is having clarity of structure. i look at it this way. the department of homeland security is intended to be the interbase, the primary interface . we have is i think your question implies, a number of law enforcement agencies involved in investigating cybercrime and a

number of different agencies including dod, nsa cyber command commit dealing with cybersecurity generally ostensibly in defensively. i came into office that looked at all of that much the same way you look at it. what i've committed to what may cybersecurity counterpart and i know them well. i've known jim colby for 20 years. i know mike rogers because he is to be my client. i know jack lu, the congress department wants a piece of this, too. so i have committed that we will meet regularly work together because it is counterproductive and doesn't serve anybody's interest, must evolve the american public. i believe we can and we showed and we are working more effect if we better and without the turf battles. a lot of it is due to

personalities. we have people at the top of these agencies who know each other and trust each other and work well together. we can minimize confusion and inconsistency. there are agencies involved in cybersecurity. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary, i want to say how much i appreciate your forbearance and courtesy earlier in our private meanings and for your public service a very difficult mission you've been given. in the spirit of oversight i'd like to ask a couple questions. your predecessor, secretary napolitano.about visa and a big part or large percentage of illegal immigrants came into this country illegally and just overstayed their visa. i think he mentioned something a year ago as well. can you give us an update on the

report? >> i sought a preliminary report which in my judgment? fidelity to be quite honest. i told many people i wanted them to go back and look hard at the issue, even if it means consulting people on the outside, let's give our best estimate at these overstays. the work i have seen so far has not been satisfactory such that i'm prepared to give it to the congress to give it to the american public is something i'm prepared to stand behind. unfortunately, i know this has taken time. he continues to be a work in progress but i want to get to the right answer. >> i appreciate that. can you give us a sense of what we expect to see that? >> i asked the same question routinely and i am told we are getting closer. >> i would take that to be months if not years. >> thank you. again in the spirit of

oversight going back to the case in texas on the immigration issue the executive amnesty issue, there's a conflict between the injunction put on that in the actions of the dhs and mainly the comment of the president. can you comment given the president seemed to indicate he was interested in being prepared and there were some 100,000 renewals done in the first few weeks that upset the judge made a comment. the president responded. can you give us clarity about what the dhs is doing now in relation to the case and being prepared for the outcome? >> in reaction to the injunction which has not been stated, we had shut down the daca program and the expanded daca program.

we did that soon after the injunction became known to us. we are in compliance with the court order. the business we're trying to put in place that we were putting in place only they be discontinued or diverted to some other use that we have principally within the cas. we are complying with the court's injunction because we have to. >> there is no ongoing preparation for you for doing originally or what you are planning to do under the original guidance. >> now, the implementation of the program which had begun after november 20 we've had to suspend. >> let me go back to the gang member ratio. i just want to ask about a recent decision of the four circuit that involved moving gang members under the ina.

in that case, individual gang membership may constitute a protected characteristic that can entitle the individual to relief from removal or entitle them to assign him. basically the rationale is like if you're an ambassador teen you might be endangering your home country if you renounce your membership, now you can't go back. it's pretty obvious we could be set up for significant fraud there. party you interpret that ruling by the fourth circuit and has it changed in a procedure is ongoing? >> i have to confess i'm not familiar with the fourth circuit decision. if you don't mind, let me take that for the record. >> that would be great. i would appreciate that. last give us an idea of how you estimate the number of people that crossed the southern

border. there is no accurate number and it was asked earlier today. i know we have this big number called illegal immigrants we are monitoring. there's got to study visa overstay, but in the terms of people illegally what are we doing to quantify that the united to play resources? this is an oversight not a political question. >> we have apprehensions which in the judgment of the professionals is an indicator of total attempts to cross the border. the report issued last week talked about apprehensions. there is an attempt also to measure what the border patrol calls turn back some getaways. that number is one that i think we can do a better job of trying to quantify said that we get to total attempts to cross the

border. i've consulted with outside experts about arriving at away to measure total attempts, some of which are published from account on foreign relations has done some good work in this area which concludes surveys of people south of the border and what their behavior may be. i'm interested in more transparent dmr clarity when it comes to total attempts to cross the border. it is not an easy exercise and there is an unknown factor when it comes to people who evade capture, evade apprehension. i'm interested in getting a better, clearer measurement. i agree with the sentiment of your question. to total apprehensions i take as

an indicator of total attempts to cross the border. >> i appreciate your quantitative approach. when you get the information which you share with us? we will put that in a written question as well. thank you for your service. that is i have. >> here is an article from i believe the "washington times," maybe not talking about a house hearing. a border patrol agent while testifying on the homeland security can't vote indicated nearly six out of every 10 alien you attempt to infiltrate the united states to the u.s.-mexico border are not apprehended. he went on to sell ask any line agent and he or she will tell you that fast reactor had 35% to

45% of the illegal immigrants attempting to cross the number even lower for drug smugglers who are much more adept at eluding capture. he said agency repeatedly report groups larger than 20 face retribution. management will later take them out of the field and assignment to processing detainees at the station or assign them to a low-volume area as punishment. needless to say agents got the message and now stay below this one a person threshold no matter the size of the group. have you investigated this charge about the agencies not to have two report more than 20 if they see more than funny? >> i have heard of that allegation. i have heard of the charge. as luck into it.

i don't have a specific answer to that suggestion. i will say this senator. six out of 10 is too high an estimate and i based that on my own conversations with border patrol experts. i will also tell you this. i spend a lot of times on the southern border with our men and women in uniform because i want to hear directly from them what they say is happening on the southern border. i'm not interested in intermediaries. >> well have you met with chris crain, head of the i.c.e. program. >> i have met with mr. crane too. >> how many times? >> at least once. i believe there's one other time as well. >> what about mr. pulley case of the u.s. eis? >> i don't recall that name.

these are the top people in his got the lowest morale and the reason is because they know you are not serious about supporting them in the mission they've been given. they filed a lawsuit against secretary napolitano asserting they are required not to force the law. i would like to have a nice conversation that this admin is ration has been systematically seeking that you see the law in force. they focus more and more on ameliorating concerns of people who enter the country illegally than they are on people that come lawfully. he also said in his testimony ought to be crystal clear the border is not secure. how can this enormous gap -- when we come in dhs tells you should here in washington and

what the agents know to be the truth in the field is frankly how you manipulate statistics are eisai we have more removals and a big increase in removals, or you start accounting before you took office. start accounting the turnaround at the border as removals they've never considered before. without those as you have a significant decline. i think you've acknowledged that counting is a new system of accounting that it can't be apprehensions at border as removals and acknowledged that mr. colbert said in the house committee meeting. >> i am not sure what you are

referring to commissary. >> is a false attributed to i.c.e. are actually a order patrol is prior administrations should. >> i have emerged from 30 or so cross examiner is. if i have to answer that question i want a q&a before and after. >> isn't it the truth? is it meant anything in recent years to start counting both? you don't know? you are the secretary. you should know. i have a chart here somewhere. it shows the actual number. actual removals on the i.c.e. chart show border patrol numbers along with i.c.e. increases the

number. only 100,000 are what we classically called removals previously. >> this is one of my directives from november 20th. just bear with me effective. >> the chart i just look at was on the chart 20-foot teen september 2014 from your office. >> i've heard the suggestion of double counting. that obviously should not happen. one of my directives is a direct the office of immigration to collect, maintain and report to the secretary data reflect in those apprehended or otherwise repatriated and report the data set forth above. i want our components to cooperate.

i intend for this to be part of that data released by dhs to the public annually. >> i appreciate that. you can call this double counting or not. border patrol apprehend people at the border and they sit back and count those as their numbers. i used to only count what they did. had a count that plus the border patrol. without additional numbers, they don't show the improvement the department has been declaring. with regard to the streamline your asking about, this is really important mr. secretary. secretary of homeland security janet napolitano said operation stream land has proven effect it. it is a program when people are called at the border are actually prosecuted. they are convicted of

misdemeanors. they have a conviction on their record. tell us to believe that it might deter more people from coming and there is the right thing to do since it violates the law. in the delaware sector after this was done overall apprehensions declined from order 2000 to 17000. to fascinate, attorney general said the program has an unbelievable return effect in the human sector from october through december 2008 and prosecuted over 1200 cases as a consequence apprehension rates.nearly 70%. we see a statistically and anecdotally when people who cross the border of the vehicle he are brought to the reality they are committing a crime, even if it's just a misdemeanor that has a huge impact on their

willingness to try again and i'm willingness of others to break the law coming across the borders. this year 2007 secretary chertoff noted a chopped nearly 70% after operation stream line. recently the president of the border patrol union said operation stream line is one of the last stronghold we have as a deterrent. so have you talked to the department of justice to attend to restore this and actually expand it and if the number of people are coming, it would be even more effective, more tickle to initiate these prosecutions. you have to defend your agents.

these are crimes. you should demand the department of justice prosecute this. >> senator come i speak to the department of justice all the time about how we enforce immigration laws. i do no apprehension numbers are down this year in every sector including arizona, including taxes and they may fear that is a good thing and i think it is a good thing as a result of different efforts including law enforcement efforts and resources on the southern border. with the help we've received from essential american government and the government from mexico. in fact, apprehension numbers are down. >> why. >> wedding to attend this program everyone has bragged on his having a real impact. 50% reduction in the sack or spur streamline is utilized. why don't you do that?

they used to be done. >> i don't know that prosecuting every mom with a young child crossing the border for a federal crime the way to go. i do believe the more effective way to go is to focus on the smugglers, focus on the coyotes who are bringing these people across. there are product to him for the criminal smuggling organization. i want to get at the source and that is what we are doing. >> secretary chertoff said it dropped nearly 70%. others have said higher numbers. secretary napolitano has bragged on the program. senator flake on the border. senator kyl thought this is one of the most good things ever done on the border and you allowed it to stop. i guess you could lay secretary general holder.

i don't see how you can blame him. senator trent takes. you've arrived. i will yield to you. thank you. the secretary can respond if you like. don't mean to cut you off. >> my point is this. we work with the department of justice all the time on the most efficient way to enforce immigration laws. what we determined last summer was to go after the smugglers. everybody's paying smugglers thousands of dollars per person to do this. they don't freelance. we've determined to go after the coyotes and smugglers do not have made a difference. >> i have no doubt. i don't know why you waited so long. secretary coons. >> thank you seminar sessions for the chance to continue our conversation on a number of

issues. i'm a first-ever cybersecurity as legislation is being considered. the administration has issued a statement of policy supporting the goals of cyberinformation legislation but warning that more needs to be done in the privacy of american set aside for security bill does not become a foreign surveillance and intelligence bill. can you expand on that and talk about how you view the department of homeland security's proper role in preventing personal user information from being shared with the nsa or cia. >> through the proper -- screening -- personally identifying information. >> yes sorry. should i do use acronyms. and as near real-time as possible because the interagency want and need for speed we

develop systems now you screen out the personal identifiers but getting the information are interagency partners need. file no cyberthreat indicators which is what we are most interested in rarely have what you and i would consider personal identifiers in them. but if they do they should be screened out. we are sure on women dating personal identifiers from the agency that should not get done. that is a project i am focused on irrespective of whether congress ask whether congress acts on legislation but i hope you do. >> is the agency currently have the resources to do both of those, to screen out the information and share appropriately right now to

promote exactly that and get us in a better place on that. >> that's encouraging. i appreciate that. june of last year we discussed three topics specific to immigration and due process where i would like an update on where we are so far. first you recognize legitimate law enforcement concerns run enforcement actions happening near courthouses. immigration enforcement at or near a courthouse in pink access to justice by setting the sending the message that going to court is dangerous for those who might be here in an undocumented status because they can lead to deportation. has the department clarified his procedures? >> yes, we have a policy. i know that i.c.e. considers the courthouse and i will not get

the wording that could write from a protected space of place. there aren't i believe there should be exceptions for genuine public safety, but we do have a policy. >> i would appreciate. we also discuss nighttime in lateral repatriation. you said you are working with the mexican government tonight knowledge the dhs policy since 2004 has been against the needless separation of families i wonder if dhs seized the practices of repatriation. >> as a result of discussions i had with the mexican government last year we now have a steering committee in place between the u.s. in the u.s. and mexican governments to better coordinate repatriation to

designated places at designated hours. we do not have a policy of separating families. i don't think that's a good idea. that is not part of our policy and i envision an exception or two for logistics reasons yes. but since last year we've moved away from repatriation and are working with the next government which were effectively identifying when we return people to be working with them to do someone a controlled way. >> thank you. a third area in the general topic providing that data files to immigrant facing deportation so they don't have to spend time going through the process. i didn't know whether dhs had begun to routinely provide proceedings something we'd agreed to would be in the interest of justice and reduce

deportation proceedings. back i do know we now have a power beyond not. we also have policy consider. sitting here i've been here a while. >> i recognize i'm the last questionnaire. >> then they get you that for the record. >> please do. i would appreciate follow-up and clarity about what the department needs to get us to a place for you are following the appropriate process. let me move to u.s. versus texas executive action. i would like your response. >> i haven't forgotten about it. >> i suspect you have it. i want your response to let the texas judge made in blocking your efforts to use

prosecutorial discretion to enforce our laws were sensibly efficiently and justly. the court ruled your directives would've for close to adjudicate each case on its merits and actually for a closer discretion and what about dhs? >> as i noted earlier in at least two places, in his opinion in this at the discretion of the secretary to decide how to develop his resources, where to focus resources should be unquestioned. as part of and the district judge seems to believe that the policy is an across-the-board hands off for a whole class of people.

with a new policy new policies that have been written is to mean a case-by-case assessment of whether somebody represents a threat to public safety, border security national security and in fact there is written into the policy something that did not exist in the old policy the daca policy. among the criteria for consideration by an examining off as there is in addition to having a child as a citizen or lawful permanent resident. does the applicant present factors make for deferred action is appropriate question that i want to encourage a case-by-case attack is a good tactic is budget is not there is a

prosecutorial discretion as to i notice a lot of disagreement in congress on the committee deferred action. i think back to when i was a prosecutor and her prosecution of religious individuals her prosecution of religious individuals on a case by case sensitive. i think this is an extension of that is the largest medicaid? yes. it is intended to be a case-by-case judgment and the authority of the secretary of the executive branch. the court also ruled that government would not suffer any significant harm through temporarily delayed after. of the interest they would impact it's having on individuals who either live

disqualifies disqualified. the observation that there is >> i know that hatred i know that hatred is disappointed in the community. a lot of enthusiasm for the program. as for myself personally in places like chicago, los angeles. the injunction is guys take care and guidance shutdowns what we have done. i believe that. while the program is enjoying could have an impact because the community is the community as confused the community is confused. there is insurgency and excited about going for% been that provided litigation. i think it has clearly a

significant setback to the overall success of the program undefined if the injunction is in place, a fusion of version two overhanging the operation is shown, as i believe last time i looked still pending and we will see -- >> would determine suffer through one more quick question? as we've discussed before coming to discussed before, and assistance to state and local law-enforcement is critical to our work together to combat terrorism and extremism to keep our country safe to by many areas he believed dhs assistant was deserving of our attention and i want to thank the chairman for his indulgence in the last question. >> cooperation and information sharing given how the global terrorist threat is evolving is becoming more and more important.

i think it is key because of the threat of the independent chair, the so-called lone wolf who is not somebody that our intelligeintellige intelligence community and the necessary detector verse the it is crucial cops on the ground and law enforcement see what we see in terms of potential terrorist threats to our country. we issue almost on a weekly basis joint intelligence bulletin to local law enforcement. we issued a pretty significant one last week. i was just that the commissioner of police in the city of boston yesterday talking about the exact issue in the scott to be the way that the future partnered with state and local police and law enforcement. >> i appreciate your attention. thank you for your answer. thank you mr. secretary. >> a 9/11 commission issued a

number of recommendations after that terrible day of me did their report. we had a biometric entry system and law since 2002. it is not in effect if you did have an iphone you for your fingerprints on it and read it. it's very practical. they have a visa for a certain number of days and when they exit, they go put their hands on it and are clocked out. so it's never been done. the 9/11 commission says there's no way you can have control which is plainly true. so we've discussed it for years. it is a requirement of loss and it can be done. when can we expect it to be

done, mr. secretary? >> as i'm sure you know, we have biometric entry from large classes of travelers. i'd like to see us have biometric exit because i agree with you. it promotes security. it's a good thing to have. a 9/11 commission recommendation and huge commitment in terms of resources. >> 9/11 commission follow-up report criticized the government one of the most severe criticisms is not implementing what they recommended a decade ago. have you asked the congress for any money? have you laid out a plan of what it would take to get it done? >> i believe we have at some point and it is something i would like to see get done. >> we will review the record and

i definitely think we should do that and i'm glad you agree. with regard to the sanctuary city problem los angeles chicago refusing to honor federal detainer is on people in the country unlawfully. we don't apparently have any desire whatsoever to support the government and having an effective immigration system and in fact we will sabotage it. would you support legislation that would clarify i.c.e. detainer submit to mandatory? >> i don't believe that a federal requirement that the local sheriff or police chief respond affirmatively to a detainer from the federal government as an appropriate way to go. i do agree with the spirit of your question and that is why we

have undertaken an aggressive effort to work with los angeles chicago, philadelphia, new york, san francisco where he was last week from the state of california wireless last week on this exact issue because one of the reasons i think we are having difficulty getting into criminals is because a lot of jurisdictions are putting barriers on their ability to cooperate with us. >> it's an unbelievable affront to god. it's an actual assertion they will sabotage law enforcement in their cities and not only do they have a different view, they are going to sabotage the law. and i are i.c.e. direct terror when asked about the same question i asked you if they shouldn't be made mandatory and

she replied thank you and yes. i understand after that she was apparently counseled and issued a retraction of that. was that your discussion with her? did you suggest she should back off that position? >> no, i wouldn't characterize it that way. she did issue a written statement the next day correcting her statement, which i believe accurately and honestly reflects her own views. i know her well enough to know that i will not get her to say some and she doesn't believe. >> well, she works for you and agents are saying and doing what you tell them to do even if it is a violation of law. so what about this problem of countries that won't accept

repatriation or return and senator specter had legislation in his view, which you have the power to do now but would be mandatory if a country does not take back and then tear it into united states unlawfully that they don't have any more admissions. that will send them a message in novel and. we have been dealing with china as the number one problem, the biggest problem. >> that was my exact conversation with the chinese three weeks ago. >> i know. the memoranda understanding and even with china seems to do little to actually fix the problem. it essentially only provides two individuals from the chinese government to assist with

repatriation efforts that involve tens of thousands of chinese. congress has provided a mechanism already in law. the immigration and nationality act to convince you to notify the secretary of state in china or other countries and in turn require the secretary of state of the united states to stop grinning he says of citizens. have you made any notification that you intend to execute such a plan if they don't accept back the individuals who are to be deported. >> well, i do believe that in the state department needs to get at these countries and point out to them they are slow in taking back the people we need to repatriate them have undertaken a campaign that he had i don't necessarily believe we have to spend immigration

travel from these countries because of this particular issue. that is probably not the best way to go. i've had some very long conversations with my chinese counterparts about the exact issue in beijing when i was there three weeks ago. >> forgive me if i don't think they're going to have a big progress with china. i hope i'm wrong. it's been going on for a decade or more and people in your chair has so to execute them use the power they have. all you have to do is tell china if you want further immigration to america you have to take back individuals because that cost us a lot of money. keep them in detention, take them taken care of, their medical needs or release them on bail and they disappear into the country and nobody is able to find them or deport them.

it is an unacceptable thing. part of international immigration we give that individual from a country comes to the united states unlawfully they should be able to be deported. with regard to the 287 g program that trains local law enforcement to determine whether an individual they come up against to find out if they are here unlawfully, to do it in a legal and constitutional way to be cooperative with the government. it was a good program expanded and executed. i touted it as a big success. but they removed the language from their website since january 206,287 g program identified more than 304,000

potentially removable aliens mostly in a local jail. more than a hundred states to help enforce immigration law. but in last.tovar, a spokesman said the 287 g program expanded the ability to initiate immigration enforcement actions against doctrinal aliens of those who fall within the i.c.e. immigration priorities and act as if worst multiplier for the agency and enhances public safety and participating jurisdictions by identifying potentially dangerous aliens and ensuring they are removed from united states have not released into their communities. by the way there was a newer part from madison county huntsville area saw prosecutor brassard, an illegal alien had

been convicted of murdering a police officer on the ground helpless pleading for his life in a murder case. he committed suicide in prison. i just would say if we want to reduce those incidents from happening we have got to use the tools we have. administration nevertheless has systematically dismantled the 287 g program and slashing funding largely because it ends the proposal. they don't like at and we have far too much action on behalf of this president and the secretary of homeland security responded to advocate for illegal immigration is serving the interest of the people of the united states.

so today, only 35 programs are existing. less than half of what it was. they should have been expanded. do you believe it's a good program? should it be expanded or do you want to continue to see a weather on the vine? >> i believe the 287 g program is a good program in many respects. the biggest problem we have senator and in terms of her with local law enforcement was 239 jurisdictions. i think i got that number right, refusing to work with us or imposing limitations on the ability to work with us. that is the big problem. so we ended to secure communities program and replaced

it with a new program that i believed resolved controversy and it takes two to dance. so i'm not out there meeting with a lot of sheriffs, a lot of police chase a lot of mayors and governors to introduce them to the program so they will work with us on immigration enforcement. >> well, i just talked to the sheriffs. they are very willing to help. they are very critical of not protecting communities and even though some may refuse, others no doubt would be willing to participate and sheriffs departments would. mr. secretary, the whole tenor of days and anyone who understates this happened indicates you are not demonstrating a will of the law being enforced.

if you will send a clear message and utilize the tools you have instead of undermining the tools you have, i believe they could have a germanic improvement in the number of people who attempt to enter unlawfully. we could reduce dramatically vsat overstays at very little cost. with the message gets out that you're not able to come unlawfully, fewer and fewer people will attempt to come. you are having a reduction in his editors at the border. we don't know how much. ..

i believe mr. secretary, you're right. that's a good program. i don't understand, it's almost like they don't understand it or just refuse to participate in it. take the fingerprint from somebody who's in the country unlawfully and send it to homeland security, maybe you would identify someone particularly violent history, or maybe you will identify where they are in the future if they are arrested again at the border. if you have information and that data. we do it for normal criminals. sighsizable john that. i think you should not have

backed down on it. very reasonable thing. i will let you wrap up in anyway you would like and the record will remain open for one week or additional questions. >> thank you senator. i do want to say something in conclusion. i have discovered that as the leader of an organization of 225,000 people, one of the ways to ensure that we continue low morale is to continue to say publicly tiller workforce, you have low morale. and so the other week there was a subcommittee on the house side that wanted to have another hearing on low morale within dhs. they called one of my people as a witness and they a visit from the. and i said please stop telling my workforce you have low morale. i don't believe that.

i think that there are good people in dhs that are very dedicated -- >> we believe the remaining few moments of history. you can see the rest of it online at c-span.org. we'll go live to capitol hill as thou subcommittee -- in particular opioid medication that relieve pain. this is just getting underway. live coverage on c-span2. >> this is our nation's single biggest public health concern. over the past five weeks the subcommittees are from addiction experts worked with local communities and our leading academic and research centers. dr. robert dupont former white house chief of drug control policy and the first director of the national institute on drug abuse testified federal programs like direction essential treating addiction as a chronic condition and noted what is being kind to follow-up with patients to prevent relapse and put them on a path to a real recovery. he challenged us to even ask

those fundamental question, what is recovery? dr. wilensky of stanford medical school provide critical testimony and how we must revise our health care quality measures to reduce overprescribing regulations and its advise the use of monitoring programs. when of those opioid addiction disorders in a broad range of treatment options and that many would substitute of have co-occurring psychiatric disorder but when you get'er done federal policy barriers that keep us from treating both simultaneously. three weeks ago one of today's witnesses, mr. michael botticelli, director of the office of national drug policy presented a slide, i will show here at the national summit on major cause of death and injury from 1999-2013, quite a revealing slide. while the transit of the major cause of death of auto accidents would have drug poisoning continue to go up 21% from 2008-2013. in the '60s numbers are

soaring as high double-digit rate increases. as he is indicated to me privately we must do better and with much work to do. today we'll hear from federal agencies charged with providing guidance, direction and leadership in our nation's public health response to the opioid epidemic. no federal agency is a more suitable in its ongoing epidemic and the department of health and human services or hhs. hhs and the substance abuse and mental health service administration, also has samhsa, are responsibly our nation's public health response to the abuse and addiction crisis. samhsa regulate our countries 1300 opioid treatment programs and samhsa is responsible for certifying the 26,000 physicians who prescribe the most commonly is opioid maintenance medication. according to testimony provided by samhsa before this committee in april of last year there were nearly 1.5 million people treated with these opioid

maintenance medications in 2012 which is a fivefold increase over the last 10 years. has samhsa defined the goal of recovery for these treatment programs are supposed to accomplish? accomplish? is samhsa click and i wouldn't meaningful david at an individual is level to withhold grant recipients individually accountable for effective results? so far the answers are no. when you don't define where you're going every road you take the lead she lost so we are hoping we can get some direction today. the numbers indicate we are failing as a nation and we don't want to come to terms with that. the 43,000 lives lost last year the thousands of babies born addicted to opioids tell us a terrible post this epidemic has taken. you've heard my thoughts about the government's promotion of what i characterize as addiction and instead refer to as a hero helper not because the medication is altogether likely because it is helping her

brother because infrastructure federal government has great reviews for this highly potent afford medication is not fully working and worse yet medicaid is contribute to the core problem. this has to be fixed i hope will find some solutions and that is what we need to discussed it openly honestly and humbly. if we do not reverse the current trend, where is is going to end? how many millions of citizens do we want to have on opioid is how much does become immortalized entries associate before recognize the depth of this national scourge? i don't believe in better living through independency. cannot misconstrue this critique as a chilling indictment of opiate maintenance, it is not. for some people of minutes is most appropriate bridge treatment initially no shame our state muscles do with it but opiate maintenance therapy should not be the only treatment offered to the opiate dependent individuals and is now the only goal. what patients can be successfully transition off of these medications on what

protocols are best for effecting this transition come what are the best practice for prevention of relapse for those patients who didn't opiate maintenance treatment? are not addictive medications approved for this use but are these widely available and how well do they work? the diversion is related problem because it is that the epidemic can be spread. according to the dea, it is the third most often sees prescription opiate by law enforcement today. what is called the modernize our existing opiate -- right patients directly to the right time? why we are not expand access? these are all encoded important tools i want to make sure hhs talks more about these. last week dr. clark from a drug of samhsa center for substance abuse treatment and a man who oversaw the growth of youth enough for an over the past decade declared before the american society of addiction that many practices have become

pill mills where doctors and dealers were increasingly indistinguishable and physician negligence an alleged laboratory fraud prevail. the problem is not with youth enough for an. the problem lies with current practice and this is what we need to discuss. i consider opiate maintenance as a bridge for those to cross over in the recovery process to assess it is not a final destination to. gentrified tvs go for eight kabul people to be free of the diseases can not just learn to live with it. we need to commit the same sorts of things to research and clinical efforts that boldly declare what we must change. i think our witnesses for being an inner recognize the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. chairman. i think of support here from our witnesses today for the work the federal government is doing to address this serious public health issue.

and then all of the agencies represented before us do critical work to prevent and treat this epidemic. in march to september well announced an initiative to combat the opioid crisis. i applaud the departments -- automatic tutor that this is one of the secretaries top priorities. we want your more about this initiative today and how all the agency for force are working together to accomplish its goal. but at the same time i have some hard questions about our approach to caring for those of substance abuse disorders. last week we heard from a panel of medical experts who have vast experience in treating opioid addiction. unfortunately, as the chairman said, give us a fairly bleak view of the opioid treat the landscape in this country. for example one witness a psychiatrist at columbia

university and a research scientist at the new york state psychiatric institute told the committee the majority of patients being treated for opioid addiction receive treatment that is both quote outdated and mostly ineffective. he described this approach of rapid detoxification followed by an absent on another without the use of important treatment medication. he added this is potentially dangerous because it raises the risk of an overdose if the patient relapses. as troubling as this testimony from our last hearing was, today we have dr. volkow on a panel who is one of the world top experts on addiction research and she knows i'm sure you talk more about this, doctor, in her written testimony that quote existing evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies are highly underutilized across the united states. why is that mr. chairman? wide with experts week after

week telling us the bulk of the treatment americans are receiving for this devastating disease are ineffective outdated, and not evidence-based? we need to be asking ourselves some tough questions. for example dr. west the president the american academy of addiction psychiatry told us last week quote, patients and their families need to know that detoxification treatment and drug free counseling are associated with a very high risk of relapse. our patients enrolled in treatment getting sufficient data so they can make adequate informed choices? our families and loved ones being told what approaches have-failure rates before choosing an approach to treatment? frankly this is not a decision that should be taken lightly. eating ineffective treatment may not only be financially costly but it may result in a fatal relapse. finally, 20 recent testimony

including some i saw in the written statements for today raises important questions about whether taxpayer dollars should fund certain approaches for combating this opioid epidemic over others. this is an issue i've been talking about week after week. we all agree that we need the most effective treatment. and out experts agree that this treatment needs to be a broad menu of options that is different from patient to patient. so we might not have a silver bullet to cure a opioid addiction at this point but we do know what treatments work better than others. evidence tells us and all the medical experts winner from last week agree that for most patients a combination of medication assisted treatment and behavioral treatment such as counseling and other support services is to effectively to treat opioid addiction. if that's the case we should pursue more policies that encourage this approach as a

clear option and steer away from any efforts that are not evidence-based. it's costly and its dangers to the patient. so i hope we can all work together to fight this epidemic i do look forward hearing from all of our witnesses. i'm glad secretary jewell and the department are devoting serious attention to addressing both the prevention and treatment sides of this problem. and mr. chairman this is been a really great series. i'm happy to have a hope investigation like this in this committee. there's one group that we haven't heard from yet. i'm hoping -- good, the states. we haven't heard from the states yet. it's critical we hear from him because that's where the rubber is hitting the road. we need to hear what the states are doing to address this problem and understand the reasoning behind some of the choices being made. some states are taking effective treatment methods and others are not.

i think we need a multi-faceted approach. this is what our research has shown and i know we can work together to continue this important investigation. i just want to add one more note. the witnesses in the audience may seem numbers jumping in and running out. we have another hearing going on down on the first four. so people will be coming and going but i know certainly from my side of the aisle people recognize this is a very serious issue. thank you. >> i know they will be calling -- calling those at 9:30 time it. i'm here for the duration. we want to hear from you. that we recognize mr. upton. >> we really are going to votes at 9:30 time i? i was about my statement for the record and. yield back. >> all right. mr. pallone for five minutes. >> i will do the same because we both have to be at this hearing. >> see how much we get along?

is there anybody else on either side that needs recognition? okay. >> wait, wait, mr. chairman. >> he wanted a minute. can i give -- >> sure. >> can i yield one minute speak was yes to mr. kennedy from massachusetts. >> thanks very much but consideration. i yield back. >> let me never introduced the witnesses on the panel producing. where the honorable michael botticelli, director of office of national drug control policy. welcome. dr. richard frank am assistant section for planning and evaluation u.s. department of health and human services. dr. nora volkow, director of the national institute of drug abuse as a nation institute of health. dr. douglas throckmorton, nobody director for the center for drug evaluation and research for the food and drug administration. doctor debra houry comfort to the national center for injury and prevention and control of

essential disease control and prevention. the honorable pamela hyde come administered for substance abuse and mental health administration. dr. patrick conway, deputy administrator for innovation and quality and seen as chief medical officer for cms. welcome. >> as you are aware i went elsewhere in the witnesses, the committee is holding an investigative hearing and when doing so as a practice to give testimony under oath. do you have any objection to testifying under oath? none of the witnesses have objection. a chair with an advisor to the rules of the house on both the committee on title ii device by council. if you use advice to be -- none of the witnesses say so. in that case please rise raise your right hand and i will swear you in. [witnesses were sworn in] >> thank you paul. all witnesses answered in the affirmative so you're not under

oath. subject to the penalties set forth in title 18 section one of the united states code. you may now each give a five minute opening statement. they stick to the five minutes. if they don't have to fill it that's okay. mr. botticelli? >> thank you, chairman murphy ranking member, members of the subcommittee opportunity provide testimony to you today about the administration's efforts to address the opioid epidemic in the united states. mr. chairman, as recognizing 2013 almost 44,000 americans died of a drug overdose. that's one drug overdose death every 12 minutes. using ondcp's role as the coordinator of the federal drug control agency and 2011 we published the administration's prescription drug abuse prevention plan to address bishop writes a prescription opioid drug abuse in this country since 1999. bastion of the plant consists of action items, categorized under four pillars. education of patients and

prescribers, increase prescription drug monitoring proper medication disposal and informed law enforcement. with the work of art hhs partnership today and other federal partners as part of the interagency prescription drug wereworkgroup convened by ondcp, we have made some strides in each of these areas but there's much more to be done. since education programs devoted to the identification of treatment of substance abuse disorders is rare, we have worked with our federal partners to develop continuing education programs about substance abuse, managing pain appropriate and treating patients using opioid more safely. many prescribers and federal agencies including hhs are saving this important training. despite there's a large percentage of prescribers have not upheld himself to the string. therefore, the administration continues to press remanded for prescribed education tied to controlled substance licensure i'm pleased secretary jewell has expressed her support for working with congress to set

requirements. today all states but one missouri, have prescription drug monitoring programs that allow prescribers, as well as alert them to the signs of depends on all. missouri is also working to authorize the program. with almost all states and limiting pd mps were focusing on improving statistic data sharing and prevent access to data within health record system providers use everyday. in october the drug enforcement administration became effective. ondcp under federal partners and stakeholders have begun to inform the public about these regulations and look to ways to stimulate more local disposal programs in partnership with pharmacy from local government community groups and local law enforcement. in the work of our law enforcement partners at the federal, state and local levels is ongoing. those engaged in fraud across

the drug control supply chain are being investigated and prosecuted. recent data shows we are seeing an overdose from prescription opioid leveling off in this country but a dramatic 39% increase in heroin overdoses from 2012-2013. this is grading an additional need for treatment and a system where a well-known gap between treatment capacity and demand already exists. therefore, we must redouble our efforts to address people who are misusing prescription opioid since we know this is a major risk factor for subsequent era when used. earlier this week the administration held the inaugural meeting of the congressionally mandated in the agency and would task force mary lou leary, deputy director for state, local and tribal affairs is one of the co-chairs for this committee. in addition to presidents fy '16 budget request includes $99 billion in additional funding for treatment and overdose prevention efforts. we've also been working to increase access to emergency opioid overdose reversal drug

and to promote good samaritan laws so the witnesses can take steps to help stabilize. many police and fire departments have already trained and equipped their personal with this life-saving drug and loved ones of people with opioid drug abuse disorders are equipping themselves as well. while law enforcement and other first responders have important role to play, the medical establishment also must become more engaged to identify and to treat heroin and prescription opioid use disorder everyday these people appear in our emergency departments and other medical settings, and more models and interventions are needed to get these individuals engaged in care. we often need to expand the availability of evidence-based opioid use disorder treatment. medication essence of treatment chooses fda approved medication combined with behavioral and other recovery support have been shown to be the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder. decisions about the most appropriate treatment options

and the duration of the agreed upon by both the patient and the treatment provider. we must also provide energy support such as access to housing, employment and education to give patients the functional tools they need to lead healthy lives and fully integrate into the committee as part of the recovery process. probably support multiple pathways to recovery, the literature shows short-term treatment such as detoxification alone is not effective in tears risk of relapse and overdose death. because of the lack of availability of evidence-based maintenance treatment and a strong connection between injection of opioid use drugs and infectious disease transmission, we also promote the use of public health strategy that will help prevent the further spread of infectious disease. the hiv and hepatitis c outbreak in indiana is a stark reminder of the open are used in spread to other diseases. how comprehensive public health strategy such as syringe exchange programs need to be

part of the response for the opioid use epidemic, and our rural communities that have limited treatment capacity may experience additional public health crises. finally, we are continuing our efforts to address neonatal absence centers. research published just yesterday shows the incidents has grown nearly fivefold between 2000-2012. and 81% of the 22 of hospital charges were attributed to medicaid. we must consider the best interests of babies is often served by best addressing the interests of the mother. therefore we need to provide safe harbor for pregnant and parenting women seeking prenatal care and treatment. in conclusion, we look forward to working with congress and a federal partners on the next page of action to address this epidemic. thank you. >> think your dr. frank, we will try to get your testimony and then we will run out and come back. go ahead. >> chairman murphy, ranking member and members of the subcommittee thank you for the

opportunity to show how the department of health and human services addressing the opioid abuse epidemic. continuing the abuse and misuse of prescription opioids in heroin it high priority to hhs leadership team as good place to be here with you today. i would like to use my time today to give you an overview how we view the challenge describe how we are working to develop a multifaceted solution to this problem. it's going to take a lot of collaboration. we are pleased to work with you and other stakeholders on this issue. addiction to an abuse of focus include both prescription painkillers and heroin and the terrible outcomes associate with those are growing at an alarming pace. just over a third of drug overdose deaths in 2012 and 2013 were from prescription opioids while heroin related deaths have spiked dramatically, almost tripling since 2010. >> the sharp increase in his use and abuse the opioid places great burden on the health system. there were 259 million

prescriptions filled for opioids in the u.s. in 2012 large increase over just a few years ago. the medicare program under part d spent $2.7 billion on opioids overall in 2011 1.9 billion of the total or 69% was accounted for a top 5% of opioid abusers because spending patterns on these structures like some of our concern. the cost of the abuse and misuse of opioid shows up in preventable use of very expensive health care. heroin presents an equally troubling but different abuse and overdose pattern. we saw increases between 2002-2009 in a number of people using heroin but that number has held fairly steady since 2009. the striking new trend is that there's an increasing share of the users that are dying from heroin overdoses. what i'm telling you is that we haven't opioid prescribing problem sitting alongside a drug abuse and misuse problem. secretary burwell is bound to

address the epidemic she is driving us toward two main goals. one, reducing opioid overdose is and overdose related mortality and two decreasing the prevalence of opioid use disorder. she directed us to use the best science and to focus on the most promising lovers that can make a difference for the people who struggle with opioid addiction and their families. hhs agencies have been collaborate on this problem for some time and we hope you will agree after today that the whole is greater than the sum of the park. our actions in from by the evidence in discussions with safe and other stakeholders fall into three general categories. one, addressing opioid prescribing practices. two, expand the use of passionate and three promoting medication assisted treatment of let me outline the plans in a bit more detail.

first, pmp's ever-increasing investment for prescription drug marketing programs which are among the most promising clinical tools to curb prescription opioid abuse. we are investing through state grants and technical assistance in supporting best practices to maximize the impact of pd mp. second the locks on which is life-saving drug that could reverse overdose from both prescription opioids in heroin. we're supporting developer of user-friendly formulation and delivery mechanism and are working with state and local governments to support training and other measures that get it into the hands of those that are imposition to reverse overdose. finally, we have plans to support the appropriate use of medication assisted treatment. the enactment of the mental health parity opens up new opportunities to expand access to these evidence-based treatments. would also award identifying best practices in primary care setting increasing access to mit

through samhsa grant support and potentially increasing the supply of nat provided by reviewing the policy and regulation to limit the types of individual service to prescribe it our commitment to halting this complex public health epidemic is set in the present 2016 budget that includes $99 billion increase for an initiative on the divide which will help us identify the most effective activities, almost continuously learn and inform future policymakers making in order to address this public health concern to so in closing this is critical for hhs and for the nation. and we can't do it alone. we need help. thank you for encouraging and open discussion of this debate and we are committed to turning the tide on discourage this become the opioid epidemic. >> thank you, doctor. now for members votes are in progress. even the times went out just a legend i think only about 20 people have voted so far.

apparently this hearing is going to do enough in their schedules. i apologize this will happen on capitol hill but we are committed to your from you. we know how important it is and we value your testimony. will probably be back in little under an hour. so we look forward to hearing from you can and giving the rest of your testimony. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a.

>> as you heard of the can is taking a break at this point as members are heading over to the house chamber for votes on a series of appropriation bills. the vote is on water and energy spending for the nest -- next fiscal year. it should be just under an hour before they resume this hearing. they can watch the vote by the on c-span. we will be back in about one hour to resume this hearing on the prescription drug abuse and oversight by the house energy and commerce subcommittee. we will have more live coverage this afternoon at one each as defense secretary ashton carter will give his remarks on military sexual assault. this is an annual report and he will announce directed to further strengthen the department prevention and response program. agenda will be live 1 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> once again that harrington house energy and commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations is taking a break and celexa prescription drug abuse while the votes in the house continuing take a look at a discussion of the administration's interpretation of the war powers act and how to confront isis. it took place in this morning's "washington journal." >> no for the next hour we have two congressmen on to talk about their new constitutional war steady crew. jim mcgovern is a democrat from massachusetts and the republican from north carolina. mr. jones let's start with you. what is the purpose comfortable

what is this constitutional war steady group and what is its purpose? >> i will quote james madison. the power to declare war including the power of judging the causes of war is fully and exclusively left best in the legislature. we have no debates. though time we have a debate is when they're asking for money millions and billions of dollars to send overseas. mr. mcgovern and eyes and all the members of both parties have been very outspoken about our constitutional responsibility. before we send young men and women to give their lives and their life. that's the reason we wanted to put the study group together because we believe members of congress should have an opportunity once the month i will post once a month jim will host, and bring in speakers from people who know what our responsibility is to try to educate our colleagues to do more responsible for these young men and women have given their life house of representatives what code is the role of congress when it comes to declaring war or pursuing war

for? >> guest: we are supposed have a role in declaring war end of the war powers resolution were supposed to a role that the president committed troops into combat operation. but look, war is a big deal. and congress doesn't treat as a big deal. we debate defense appropriation bills defense authorization bills. we don't talk about what's going on in afghanistan or iraq or nothing syria. we try to offer a minute and oftentimes they are denied as we don't even have the opportunity to debate these issues on the house floor. and i think that's a great disservice to the men and women who serve in our armed forces but you know its congress is basically advocating this responsibility. you can't have it both ways. he gets back and criticize the president for committing troops into another war on iraq and in syria and then say what i don't want to do my job. i do want to vote yes or no on

the its duties of congress to stand back and let it all happen because if it goes bad you can say i told you was going to bed. if it was good you can say i was with him all the way. what we are trying to do is force our colleagues and force the leadership to do what congress is supposed to do debate and vote on these things. >> host: so you're saying that congress is reluctant to step up and take its constitutional duty trip to walter and i had a resolution we brought to the fore last july saying if u.s. troops were engaged in sustained military combat operations in iraq that we would have to come back and have a vote on in aumf to authorize the. it pass with 370 votes. by a huge bipartisan voter and that is on record saying they believe we ought to engaged in this issue. in august we begin bombing in iraq every single day again. as you read the papers we are

more and more engaged, have boots on the ground and there's no end in sight. and yet we can't get the committees of jurisdiction to bring a resolution to the floor. if you don't believe in the stuff walter and i both have serious issues about what we are doing in the middle east right now but you don't know. if you think it's a good idea you vote yes. you can't win the white house to the president has done his job. he submitted in aumf to congress. it's too broad in my opinion. i wouldn't vote for it but he did what he was supposed to do. congress is not doing what it's supposed to do. >> host: the president's aumf from your perspective is too broad from some conservatives perspective. it's too narrow because it's got a time limit and its is no ground troops. >> guest: i am like grant. i think it's -- jim points -- jim's point is my point as well. put it on the floor and let's have a debate. if those that want to not have a

time in or an endpoint, then let's debate that but this is what is happening. i blame the speaker of the house on this one. the president did send to congress this new aumf but we at this point have not had don't likedoeslike in february i think of we've not had any real formal hearings. we did have hearings but also included other issues in addition to the president's request for a new aumf authority. we didn't get to the floor. >> host: you're a member of the armed services committee, and, welcome let's go to this article this one in the "washington post." war authorization fades away into partisan gridlock -- deadlock. no goal adam schiff of the committee has sent a letter saying we need to have this debate. happy to sign on to this letter? >> guest: we sent a similar a few months ago and then a few months before that.

we have done this time and time again. we are a little bit tired of sending letters. one of the things we will probably do because will be on break next week is when we come back offer a privileged resolution under the war powers resolution and try to force a debate and a vote on our involvement right now in iraq and in syria. >> guest: if i could make a quick point. we are spending roughly to do this bomb in the middle east not pocket whether we should or should not about $8 million a day. the american people and those with uniform we have a responsibility and an obligation to both to have this debate. and it makes no sense for this leadership of the house to not let us meet our constitutional responsibility. that is what this is all about and we think this study group really could help them educate our colleagues by bringing in

people that know the constitution and speak to it and say you have a responsibility. mutual responsibility, or don't run for congress. >> guest: in addition to -- post but let's put the numbers up on the screen. >> guest: not only do we not vote on whether or not to put our men and women in uniform and it harm's way but we don't pay for it either. these wars have cost us trillions of dollars. they are on our credit card i suggested it to go to war congress and the president ought to enforce a war tax. people ought to pay for. right now the only people that are sacrificing are the men and women are serving in afghanistan iraq and other places around the world come and defense. the rest of us are not even as they pay for. if the american people to want to pay for, and maybe you should go to war. this notion we have made it so easy to get involved in these foreign entanglements there's no accountability no oversight, no votes, no responsibility for

congress kind of sits back and ignores its constitutional responsibility is outrageous. we have done letters resolutions, and we are going, we may use the privilege revolution -- resolution. >> guest: we've done stages on the floor called five minute speeches. i do want the week about the waste of life and in afghanistan. no accountability or you had inspector general of afghan reconstruction talking about all the waste, fraud, and abuse, and this is again by jim and i feel so passionate about this. it's about those who give their life and limbs. it's about the taxpayer they can't get an account of how the money is being spent. >> host: are we still operating, we'll show this on the screen from under the 2001 aumf right after 9/11, presidents authorize for use to use all necessary appropriate force against those nations organizations or persons he

determines planned authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, et cetera, et cetera? >> guest: the aumf we passed on mr. bush's and mr. obama has assumed the authority, which has a right to come and that is what he is, at the aumf from the 2001-2003 is what he is using no. and let me say this in fairness to the president. he has his legal advisor to they say that he has the authority to use the existing aumf. we are just saying there's a new fight company worldcom we need of a new -- >> guest: it's 2015. we are relying on an aumf from 2001 and 2003. it's a ludicrous. we are now fighting a very different war in iraq than we did, then when we entered in baghdad in 2003. so to justify our current wars based on things that happened in

2001 2003, it's just crazy. and again maybe not having to engage people but look we should have a thorough debate on this issue. and i don't know where the votes are. i'm skeptical of what we're doing right now. it ought to be tough to send american men and women into war. not to be easy. and, unfortunately, it's become to easy and i'm not sure that what we are doing in some of these involvements is enhancing our security one bit. >> host: the fact that war has become so the regular in so many ways, should the president have the freehand that he currently has two waged the war? >> guest: the president has the authority. but we have the war powers resolution. we have with the constitution says our responsibility is. it ought not be able to do whatever he wants without any input or any approval from congress. i think it's pretty clear and

the fact that they're using a 2012003 to aumf to justify kind of what you're doing out tells you they even recognize that. all we are saying is that's a long time ago. quite frankly we have to repeal those aumf. if you want to start another series of war you want to have a new aumf. i don't believe we should start another series of wars and i believe that's why one of the reflection of this debate to find out are there alternatives that were effected what we'd do what we've been? we've been at war for an awful long time now. and i was telling some of them reminds me of the dr. seuss book, cat and at the recovered clear up the mess and domestic bigger. mcclenathan it gets bigger. i think that's what our policy in a part of the world has been all about. taking this is a making them bigger and bigger and bigger. >> host: do you support, and and by the way is cost over $2 billion so far the air

attacks and bombings on isis? >> guest: i know that we have to deal with isis. they are and evil group, no question about it but i think before should answer that question to you, when you have a a debate on the floor of the house. the problem is that we continue to allow the president to have the authority to continue this bombing but yet we say nothing about it. and i blame the leadership of the house and senate are not alone as to meet our constitutional responsibility. >> host: let's take some calls. walter jones is a dilemma, jim mcgovern from massachusetts. georgia this is robert who is a democrat. you were on the "washington journal." >> caller: thank you. i can get to questions out in 30 seconds. mr. mcgovern, can you tell me if you believe that the special forces of intelligence were the most likely cause or ability for

getting the people they wanted to get in al-qaeda in afghanistan? my point being it was sold public opinion wise we need to send regular troops in to get it but it didn't turn out that way. was that was the? and for the other representative, the thing that was so for popular opinion in the united states for iraq was weapons of mass destruction. ha ha. my question to you sir there was a vote held onto. we spend regular troops in there. you were talking as though you are proud of that vote. are you? thank you. >> guest: abaco first and then let jimbo. no i was not out of the boat. it's one of the worst mistakes i've made since i've been a member of congress. i bought the administration's misleading manipulative intelligence that was quite frankly was a lot about the iraq war. it doesn't do my heart any good but to show god that i regret in

my vo-tech i signed over 11,000 letters to families of this country. so i will go to my grave regretting that vote, quite frankly. >> guest: with regard to your first question, you're right. we got osama bin laden not with one of thousand troops in afghanistan. we got him with a well-trained group of special forces navy seals at the academy in pakistan because look, i think we all agree that we are to go after the bad guys but how you do it i think is something we to discuss. i think i would argue that our involvement in afghanistan all these years has been incredibly costly. we have propped up one corrupt government after another and al-qaeda is a now we are fighting the taliban which were indigenous to afghanistan and there's no one inside. don't forget the president said we're supposed to be out of afghanistan this year. old and i tried offer an intimate in the defense bill last year saying okay we

support the president getting us out of afghanistan but if we decide to stay beyond congress ought to vote to authorize that or not. we were denied by the congressional leadership to even offer that the minute. >> host: mr. mcgovern from issuer democratic leadership in support of what you are doing? >> guest: i think they are. but the way this place works is that whoever is in the majority is in charge. and quite frankly it is up to this speaker of the house because he is in charge, he he is the g20 gets to decide what gets schedule and what doesn't to actually get things done. at the end of the date of congress has no come in the answer is no. if congress had just been the answer is yes. but the majority of the people in charge, have the responsibility of schedule what goes on the floor. and i believe our leader, kind are democratic leader nancy pelosi believes we are to the vote and a discussion on this.

but she's not in charge. speaker of the house john boehner is. >> guest: ginger ninja in afghanistan but i went to walter reed tuesday of this week -- jim mentioned -- a week or so ago i get a for speech at least two little girls whose daddy was killed two years ago in afghanistan, his name was sergeant kevin baldwin. he was from camp lejeune which is in my district. the colonel benjamin palmer was from cherry point which is in my district. they were sent to afghanistan to train afghans to be policemen. the night before those two men were killed kevin e-mailed his wife and says i don't trust them, i don't trust any of them. the next day he and palmer were killed by the people they were trying to train. the reasons reason i want to say, i had no idea that i was going to meet two of the four that were part of the group wear a medic was

shot in afghanistan three weeks ago and killed by the people they were trying to help. that is why i feel so passionate about what jim and i tried to do. we need of this debate. the military deserves it and the american taxpayer deserves at. >> host: al is in tampa, florida, republican. callback yes my concern is i'm a disabled veteran. i've been waiting nine years, two months and five days for my va claim and my concern is you don't know anybody stand anymore. republicans or democrats on even for speech and stuff like that about these wars and stuff like that. on it least you could go and look at the voting record of that and decisive see republican and democrat party but the same issues. and i mean i've given my service. i wasn't injured during the war in debt.

i was injured in an accident in the service, but it's a shame that the problems with the va and not being treated is i mean -- >> host: we got the point. thank you very much. quick response. >> guest: i was a response. >> guest:response. >> guest: i was a very quick look at al should call this member of congress. i have over 70,000 retired veterans in my district. they come first. they call our office respond quickly. and i think i'll thank you for your service continued to contact his congressman or person or call a senator's office and say, i've waited so long. i need my benefits. i've earned them guess but i would say to al and all those who serve our country, all of our veterans, we are very grateful for their service, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. that means also making sure the health care services that they are entitled to, they've earned as they deserve are available.

we're taking, we took up a va appropriations bill in the house of representatives quite frankly is underfunds our va system. we have no problem with the borrowing money to senate halfway around the world but when it comes to dealing with problems including veterans care here in the united states, all of a sudden we're told we have a tough budget situation from we can't afford a. i think that's just wrong. >> host: have you seen improvements in the va in the last year or two? >> guest: in my state i have seen some improvements. there's more to do but i think the da gets the message and it's too bad we have to confront some of these issues but what about this terrible scandal that occurred but if you think i do see noticeable changes in massachusetts. >> host: joe is in ohio on our independent line. >> caller: good morning, peter. i never thought i would say this.

i'm 63 but i wholeheartedly agree with both of these gentlemen, republican and a democrat. i said if you look back at what congress did when george bush was negotiating with saddam hussein to go and inspecting, he told congress he needed the war power in order so that saddam knew he meant business. and this congress did the most cowardly thing in its history and gave the power to declare war to the president, which is the most obnoxious thing i can imagine. they didn't hold any hearings on back then. i don't know why these gentlemen are expecting to hold any hearings on anything of substance after that.

>> guest: well, we appreciate your comment and we certainly share your frustration. and that's what we're putting together this group. but that's why we are also putting our fellow members of congress on notice that we're going to use every procedural motions available to us to try to force this debate. .com if you go to work out if you go towards ought to be eckler defined mission, a beginning, a middle and an and. we know how it begins but no can tell us how things. i can't figure out what our current mission is in afghanistan anymore. it's changed so many times. we need to exercise our proper constitutional role in oversight and to providing authorization, or while not providing authorization but sitting back and letting all this happened and twiddling our thumbs is just unconscionable. >> host: you said you may use a privilege of the solution unhealthful greg hallett that work. >> guest: this is jim's initiative. someone to say this really is

duty to avoid what is about the only option we have to force any discussion or debate on the floor. jim logue would introduce it and i will join you but this is his idea to let me share with them just to make the pilgrimage we took last july we introduce a privilege resolution basically saying in poking the war powers resolution and forcing an end to any further escalation in terms of promote the involvement in iraq. we negotiated with the speaker about a less forceful resolution when the put is on record as saying if we are engaged in sustained combat operations we will reconvene and we will vote on a formal aumf. that was in july. nothing has happened. we come back from our break. we will reintroduce the privilege resolution to it has 14 legislative days to write things that it forces a vote on the floor.

unfortunately -- >> host: what makes it privileged traffic there are procedures in place that give us back to the to bring a resolution like this to the floor. unfortunately can't write the legislation would like to write so it's basically about withdrawing our forces. but look, we go up to people who vote with those or vote present at least to send a message to the leadership of the committee of jurisdiction that you got to do something. and look if the majority in congress say no then it's no. if the majority say yes, then it is just. but being silent communism that's moral cowardice. it really is. walter talks about the veterans he talks of walter reed seen veterans at walter reed. i talked a better title. i've been to funeral after funeral after funeral and do not even the actively engaged in

the discussion about what we are doing, i think it is a sad commentary on where congress is right now house of representatives thomas in harrisburg pennsylvania a democrat. you on with the "washington journal." >> caller: [inaudible] desperate on the afghanistan resolution, yes. >> caller: that's right. >> guest: and i voted afghanistan resolution because i thought it was appropriate to hold those responsible for 9/11 to account. what i didn't expect everything we all didn't expect was that resolution would be so broad and in its terms of interpretation we were still be in afghanistan again not by al-qaeda any more than we are now fighting the taliban and god knows who else, but i voted against the iraq resolution as well because i thought that that was a mistake. i didn't give the administration had made the case and i'm glad i voted against it.

but i think the important point here is about congress was on record on both afghanistan and iraq. we are not on record on this current war in iraq or in syria or wherever else were going to end up going. >> host: robert is in manchester michigan. independent line. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i would just like to say that i'm very proud of both of these gentlemen for being you know sociable and getting along with each other which is very rare for both parties. you know, you don't see that anymore. but as far as all these wars i don't know why were in the middle of everybody else's war. i can understand why we've got to keep the shipping channels clear. we just need one warship to do that you know but if it got to be in the middle of everybody's war they should be paying us instead of us paying, you know

to control everybody else's war. there's no reason for us to be in the middle of every war going -- >> host: that is robert in michigan to this is the response from walter jones. >> guest: i want to thank robert because that's exactly what jim and i are grateful to you do have us on the show today. we are going to be in afghanistan for nine more years. it was an agreement that president obama has signed with mr. gandhi, the new president of afghanistan. for nine more years of life limb and money. we have not had a discussion on that. and 90 agreement with a foreign country to have a to present and help them rebuild their roads and street and we can't build on roads and streets spending billions of dollars every month because we are so frustrated. >> guest: you are 100% correct. house of representatives mr. jones come is this a

different than the congress being involved in the iranian negotiations, the iranian deal negotiation? >> guest: well, peter, i think the president should have the latitude to that the ongoing negotiations which and i might agree or might not agree. i think we do have a role. once they complete if they should complete this agreement then i think congress should have the ability to analyze the agreement. ..i do think that we need to have an ongoing negotiation. both parties have a right to see what the agreement is. guest: what walter and i are talking about are instances where we are putting american servicemen and women in harm's way, directly involved in hostilities and combat operations. that is