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 war.

it is very clear that congress has a role in that. even the executive acknowledges that. that's why the president keeps pointing to these amufs again, that is why the president keeps pointing to the au match trouble from a long time ago and why she submitted a new transporter congress. i think there's a little bit of difference here. when it comes to war it is kind of ironic because the iranian deals is not about us putting troops in harms way. everybody feels congress ought to have a role. was got to approve this and approve that. but yet we've got people in harms way right now. we are borrowing billions and billions of dollars to fight these wars. where is everybody? that is a more clear-cut example of where congress should be involved. >> host: jim mcgovern you are a member of the house rules

committee. could you explain briefly why that is so powerful? >> guest: virtually every bill that comes to the house for goes through the rules committee. we sometimes alter the text of the bill. we decide whether amendments can be offered. if so how many time limits and basically keep the trains running if you will. but the rules committee and i'm on the committee is where we make the pitch to say on defense bills, let us have these amendment. let us be able to debate whether we should continue to be in afghanistan whether we should expand our military footprint in iraq and it's frustrating because the leadership has been very insisted on saying no we don't want these debates. during that time we try to bring up afghanistan amendment, i was told there's a lot of important matters and what could be more

important than the fact american men and women are in harms way fighting a war. that deserves debate. good people can have differences of opinion. walter and i had disagreements with the administration. we think it invites a war without an end in the middle east. i'm respected of putting their views on paper and presenting them. good people can differ in would have can differ and we have to have those differences publicly and we ought to be on record as voting yes or no on these things. >> host: walter jones you consider yourself an outlier in an outlier in the republican party. >> guest: i am independent. my first obligation is to my lord and savior and my second obligation is to do for the love my districts but i believe the lord wants me to do. my chief of staff who came with me today says about walter jones when he goes to the floor, i don't know whether he will vote as a conservative populist or

libertarian. i guess that is who i am. i vote my conscience because too many times i see the influence of money in policy in washington that bothers me greatly. >> host: why did you vote against the budget that passed? >> guest: i voted against the budget resolution because it is a shell game. it will not accomplish what they say it will accomplish in 10 years. they continue come in my opinion coming is a gimmickry type system to say we are going to balance the budget and i'll take it as an honest budget to begin with. >> host: do you support the defense spending of the budget? >> guest: no. >> host: too much? >> guest: the problem is kind of like why we are here today. in these bills they write the bills so that they can get the votes of certain members and if

they had not been able to get votes on the committee come in the armed committee by raising $94 billion in the oco funds come a slush fund overseas contingency fund they would've gotten a pass. >> host: next call is muriel in new haven, connecticut on her democrat line. jim mcgovern and walter jones. >> caller: hey peter and walter and jim. i have to say this. on the issue of war and peace, i support peace 100%. but here is the thing. walter and jim represent what is really great and true and americanism. they support our flag. they support our country and they know what war means to families that have to send their brothers their son their

daughters, there has been. a famous poet wrote once in flanders fields the poppies grow amid the crosses row on row. wars don't solve anything. the only thing i want to say more than what i have already said, if you support our flag if you support our country, then this issue of having to did date among our people that rep resents us is the most important thing to the republic. >> host: muriel, we are going to leave it there. mr. mcgovern come any response? >> guest: i appreciate muriel statement and i agree. i think it is a very american thing to have dissent.

i think that is the way the country operate and i think in coffee shops across the country people talk about these things. i walk into a diner and people say to me why are we still in afghanistan or why are we getting involved in another war? they wonder why we are not having the debate in congress. congress is becoming a place where we debate trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all. what is more important than this? we've paid a heavy price in terms of blood and treasure with our involvement in these wars over these years. we need to talk about this and we need to get it right. there were alternatives other than the same old same old. >> guest: at the point was she had some great points, but why don't you and congress meet

your constitutional responsibility? that is why we are here today. >> host: said the constitutional work study program. when is the first meeting? is it open to members cameras but if the plan? >> guest: we are working with jim's office will have the first meeting at the end of the night. we are going to rotate every month. we want to bring in anyone who would like to join us. we're trying to get the number of members of congress. anywhere from 20 to $25 and a regular basis because the schedules are crazy run congress. we want speakers that come in. we want experts on the constitution that can remind us we have a duty based on our constitutional oath to the american people. >> host: have other members of congress joined yet? >> guest: people are calling

in and wanting to be part of it. a lot of members of congress, democrats and republicans are hungry to have discussions on these things and talk about the alternatives and the procedures in which we can be heard on this. they are hearing from constituents as well. why are they so silent on this? why don't you do your job? this is an attempt to force us to do our job. we will attack privileged resolutions and other procedures to force the debate and as the comfortable at the debate this might be it is a debate that has to happen. >> host: mark clearwater, florida appeared republican good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for leading america have a voice. my question is for the independent independent republican congressmen. i am a bostonian and i'm familiar with mr. governs

politics. if i recall thousands of kurds were killed with searing gas and mustard gas. we played cat and mouse for 10 years and it was not one resolution but the whole world knew we had weapons of mass destruction. what beach we were landing them on and he moved them out before we got there. remember the cameras on the beach of a nonmilitary coming in. the republican independence stated that bush lied. i would like to know now because you do vote for the war, what information he has to prove the fact that rush bush lied because that is the comment he made. >> guest: i have spent ever since i voted for the transport to give bush the authority, which i hoped he would not use to go into iraq i met with people such as anthony's cd who

was the commander that oversaw the iraq territory who told me he was in constant contact with the u.n. inspect her. they were going in almost every day to see what saddam hussein was doing. i talked to people, the cia. i talked to people on the end before we went into iraq and they all said it was manufactured, no justification and they never found his weapons and other countries. maybe they will one day, but they haven't yet. >> host: quarry, six junction vermont. please go ahead with your question or comment for the congressman. >> caller: this is for congressman jones. i would like to know how far he's come up is built to get to 20 pages pages that the 9/11 commission report declassified and please explain a little bit to the uninformed with the bill is about. thank you. have a good day. >> guest: well, where the

house was lucian, steve lynch from massachusetts as well as thomas massie and i and members of congress. we've read 20 pages that came the 9/11 congressional inquiry. senator bob graham has been in front of the issue for a number of years. what we want to do as president obama has promised the 9/11 families on two separate occasions that he would declassified the information for the 9/11 families. most of these up in the northeast where jim is from. all we are saying is mr. president, please keep your promise. i will tell you bob graham is appeared this week. you remember the house of representatives. i had a chance to talk with him. he has had a conversation with senator rand paul. i talked to him yesterday and asked him to put the same resolution on the house side. he is going to reach out.

senator paul will talk to ron wyden and we hope they will say that the national security issue about relationships and put in the same resolution with the nine 9/11 families and the people of america to know the truth. >> host: you are able to read them as a member of the armed services committee? pasco any member can read them. you have to ask permission of the intelligence committee and they will give you authorization. you go into a room. somebody watches you read them. you can take any notes. i read 20 pages in the american people have a right to know the truth about who financed the 9/11 attack. >> host: have you read it? >> guest: i haven't. i'm always afraid to read it but i will repeat it. i support walker 100% and that senator graham has been advocating. it seems to me that people know what their government does.

as soon as they feel in washington is the job to keep everything a big secret. people can't handle the truth. people's taxpaying dollars are funding this operation in washington and paying for what we do overseas. i am all for putting a little sunshine on what is going on. >> host: 1973 the war powers act passed. how is that going to take a role in their constitutional war study group discussion? >> guest: will talk about -- again, there's controversy over that, but we are going to talk about what our constitutional responsibilities are and why we are not beating them right now. we will follow in conjunction with the war powers resolution which said the president introduce troops in harms way and have fixed the days in which to kind of congress and ask for

our approval and we are not to be not. as we said before, even if we disagree with what the president has submitted, he has submitted a shrink five. he has done his job approval told last year we have to wait for him before we can though. he did. he did everything he was asked to do. now we are told we shouldn't vote on anything in the last congress. we have to wait until the new congress comes in. we now have a new congress may may 1st. so we are done without excuse. now we are told we can't come together because there's too many differences. bring it to the floor. let's have this debate and let people vote their conscience. the way it works here is the dawn of the votes you don't have the votes. you can't do things about the votes. if you do, fine. go ahead and do what you are

doing. to say it is too complicated too uncomfortable or to blame a nonpartisan big bickering i'm a liberal democrat from massachusetts. there's a lot of differences we have. we've been together on this. this is not republicans versus democrats. this is what we think is right and what we think is wrong. we are not the only republican and democrat on this thing. there are lots of republicans and democrats who feel as we do and are frustrated. >> host: and the appetite for this in the senate, the constitutional war study group? >> guest: it is going to be interesting, which is why we appreciate the opportunity today. we spent the first letter from jim and myself asking colleagues to consider joining us in the study group. my hope is to look at a lot of

energy from people who believe in the constitution by scholars for non-scholars who believe in the constitution give us a little bit of momentum with the after. we work hard to get this done because again, this is our responsibility to commit young men and women to die. >> senator mccain of virginia has been very vocal. all we are trying to do is get this congress to do its job. we can argue about different positions, but right now we are doing nothing and that is not acceptable. >> host: tom, clinton, maryland. thank you for holding. you are on the air. >> caller: can you hear me okay? >> host: we are listening. >> caller: the american wars have cost people so much. we've rebuilt japan.

we rebuild kandahar. our bridges are falling apart. our words are coming apart. baltimore is a good example of people in the city who get nothing from the government. i am going to help other people so we can help them. we have more respect for each other. >> guest: i agree totally. our nation's debt today at eight teen $1 trillion. bill clinton left off at 5.9 trillion today it is 18.1. that is why jim and i are sitting here today. we are so frustrated because we find all this money descender -- to send a foreign country so they foreign country so they can have roads and schools and let

the taliban and blow them up while we can't fix our roads and schools in america. it is time for congress to have the debate that jim and i are pushing. it is time to reestablish the priorities because we are in bad financial shape. >> a few years back was supported the notion that for every dollar we spend there, we should spend a dollar here. every dollar with a road or bridge in afghanistan iraq, spend at least a dollar here in the nine states. if we did that we probably would have created millions of jobs here and fix all of our roads and bridges and aging infrastructure. but it is frustrating when we have budget debate that we are told we don't have money for infrastructure here. we don't have money to rebuild schools or to invest in revitalizing neighborhoods. but when it comes to putting money overseas, whatever money we don't have, we borrow and nobody says anything.

for those who are fiscal hawks out there, they act to demand would pay for these wars are stop them. going to war on a credit card can no longer be an option. we cannot afford it. our country here is paying the price and that is what is frustrating. constituents are complaining why aren't you helping us back home? we tell them there is no money. that is not what we are told when it comes to investing in wars overseas. >> guest: to jim's point real quick very impressive man very impressive manner received from a military in afghanistan. i asked him recently at an armed services hearing would there be anyone in the military or administration to come to congress when congress is funding a nine-year agreement with the country to ever come back and say we have been there for years. i can't see any change. let's stop it. i said you won't do it. we will be there nine years after nine years.

this is our frustration. it is not fair to the american people and those in uniform. >> host: georges in jacksonville, florida on the republican line. >> caller: yes, that didn't work in 12 countries. three of them were muslim. i would strongly suggest that we come back to four-week shock and pull out, bring the christians and moderate muslims out and send them to a place like lebanon or other countries that will take them in and then tell them we will be back if they attack us. there are six steps to the islamic conquest. you are only talking about number six. mass immigration -- >> host: if you could go straight to your point. you think our current policy of bombing isis are helping the iraqis the way it is set up

without input. you agree with that? gastineau 100,000 troops pull out. >> host: mr. mcgovern. >> guest: i'm not sure i subscribe to this solution here but the point of the matter is that is what we are having debate on and people ought to express their views. the one thing with my people as lyndon johnson had this great line. he said it's easy to get into work, tired as to get out of one. it's been too easy to get into these wars and no one can tell me how this is all come together. the ultimate answer is people in iraq are willing to live with each other. you can't bomb back into a reality. we need to think differently because otherwise we are doing the same old same old and i don't think it has been worth it quite frankly.

>> host: manchester, new hampshirhampshir e. a couple minutes left with our guest. democrat. >> caller: hi how are you doing? i want to say as far as the democratic republican does come it doesn't make any sense anymore. you are just fighting back and forth. no one is working together. you should have general clark on there with you guys. he talked about the destabilization of other countries because they don't want to use our paper money because our paper money is the trouble right now. the federal reserve is a private organization. every piece of dollar bill that comes across the bank has a debt tax to it. we are all working under that. we get paid with that. we pay our bills with debt. the slaves are getting ticked off. we've had enough bickering. if we want to stop this thing we can go over and stop this thing.

if we want to know about 9/11 and the troops in the 20 pages, we could definitely do it. put the pressure on the american people. i can't start my own business. i'm not a part of my kids family. the states have stepped in and they want to take money from me when i'm not apart of anything. >> host: we are going to leave it there. walter jones. >> guest: i agree with kevin on 90% of what he said. this country is in financial chaos on those. i am of the monetary positions of ron paul and i believe some seriously that is why mention $18.1 trillion in debt. i believe we are headed towards a financial calamity if we don't start dealing with out-of-control debt of the nation. you can start that by having a foreign policy that makes sense and has an intuitive. that is jim's point as well as

mine. >> we are frustrated too with the bickering and partisanship. we agree. >> host: how did this relationship form? >> guest: on the war issues, but also jim and i are very strong together on home health care, totally different issue. >> host: unit of friendship in your working together? >> guest: absolutely. we're big advocates of home health care. we established a relationship, a friendship. through these relationships you realize you have more in common than you think. you don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. we found something we at ground when it comes to war and that is calmer seas to vote yes or no on it. we've come together. people who are watching should call your members of congress and tell them to join ours of the group to be part of the

bipartisan effort to demand congress do its job and be held accountable that we vote on these issues and debate these issues and maybe we can change the banks. >> host: we have 30 seconds left. the constitutional war study group begins when and what is your role? >> guest: it is being formed as we speak. it will basically get members together and staff and learn about what our options are. what are the constitutional responsibilities. what are the solutions to these difficult situations in the middle east. it is primarily to remind our fellow members of congress that we have a constitutional responsibility when it comes to war and peace and we are not living up to their responsibility. >> host: potentially a privileged resolution after the break next week with debate on the floor. gentlemen, thank you.

>> we are live once again from capitol hill is the root awake the resumption of the house hearing on prescription drugs. committee members are in the house chamber with a series of those. will pick up live coverage of the hearing and if you moments when both conclude in the house. you will see the boats as they take place in our companion network on the c-span. in the meantime, other life program to alert you to. secretary ashton carter will be briefing reporters on the annual report on military sexual assault. after having testified before the senate armed committee in the morning.

>> we are going to end right at 3:30 -- [inaudible] >> so, thank you for being here. it has hearty been a long and you click that day. i have an opening statement and i will get to questions. first and foremost, i want to welcome young juliet doctor who came to work with her dad. [inaudible] [applause] as many of you know just completed yukon's testimony. we had a great exchange which i believe many of you watched some of those who did not know will

follow up on the points made there. europe faces a different and much more challenging security environment, one with significant implications for u.s. national security interests. russia is lately attempting to change the rules and principles that have been the foundation european security for decades. the challenge posed by a resurgent russia is global not regional and enduring, not temporary. the situation on the ground in eastern ukraine is volatile and fragile and we remain committed the best way to bring the conflict to a lasting solution is to a political settlement one that respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity. while we question the assistant u.s. should provide, we need to expand the conversation to ensure we include all element of national power to support ukraine's using the formula we use in the military as

diplomatic information on military and economic. we cannot fully be certain what russia will do next and we cannot fully grasp the content. but what can and are learning from this action and what we see just growing russian capabilities significant military modernization and ambitious strategic intent. we also know that a fuller response to strength and seeks opportunities in weakness. we must strengthen our deterrent in order to manage opportunistic confidence. eucom in the nato alliance or adapt to through improving readiness, improving responsiveness adapting to the challenge and increasing our own collective security. coupled with challenges posed to russia europe faces a surge of violent extremism and foreign fighters returning home from the fight syria and iraq.

the spread of instability in the reach of transnational terrorism that have a direct bearing on the national security of the u.s. homeland and facing both of these challenges to the east and to the south, eucom is working close with our sister so calm, nato partners as well as allies and other international organizations including this year. addressing challenges means they're on u.s. efforts in europe remained utterly essential. more important now than at any time in the news to me. our reinsurance activities through the atlantic resolve has demonstrated our resolve to keep the president in our nation commitment to article v of the net washington treaty. our ability to be hazardous on for and reassure quickly rests on the fact that we are buried in europe, forward and ready. there is simply no substitute

for a force presence in europe. is the bedrock of our ability to assure our allies to deter real adversaries than respond in a timely way should deterrence fail. rotational presence is a sad to -- is no substitute for permanent, but generally fully funded presence can play import role in aiding the requirement if it is sealed to tell them properly resourced. they are complementary and manages to both u.s. rotational forces. increase readiness and interoperability with rotational forces have added you because of the flexibility i have two assignments brought the theater for exercises in treating meant to assure allies and partners. these advantages are at risk because of budgetary challenges

and resourcing trade-offs we face now based on the budget control act which is already forced eucom to assume significantly greater risk. timelines are longer preparations are less robust to deter and defeat in a timely and manner is less sure than it could be. security challenges in and around europe are growing sharper and more complicated and will be made much worse if sequester occurs. with that i think i'm ready to take questions. >> thank you very much. i [inaudible] your comments on your twitter feed, you are very forward leaning -- [inaudible] intuitively, the white house's mouth when you hear the public comments. i wonder if you feel the policy was once from the obama

administration a ratcheting up of economic sanctions it better meets the challenge come is commensurate with the challenge of the u.s. national security that is laid out here challenging the rules. you know my response to strength, opportunity in weakness. the mismatch between your description of the policies. >> so there are things we are doing broadly in europe, which i do believe addresses putin's calculus. the things we do with our nato allies to build the assurance measures happening from north is a con air land and sea. his response is our nation's reply in the european initiative taken almost a billion dollars to build the infrastructure we need an easternmost portions of our nato nation to bring

exercises you see playing out now, training which you see playing out now hoping not only nato allies, but partners like georgia who is the second largest contributor in our portion in afghanistan today. i think we are taking broad measures which mr. putin does understand. the concern that i have about what is going on and it uses based on what we've seen across the last year as russian operations have continued. >> general breedlove, in your testimony is says russia's recent activity gives you pause and leads you to believe they are getting ready for another sometime this spring. wondering if you could provide details of what you've seen and what you think will happen. >> i think what i said is these preparations are consistent with

the possibility of an offensive. that is what we've seen through several of the previous positives. what was seen as a pattern of resupply, training getting set for future actions. we have seen that have been during this law cease-fire since the february agreement. so we can't know what mr. putin has in mind. we can see what is done in the past and what is done during this pause. >> on mac if they were to go forward out of the reset, what was there checked his feet? when he detonated that charge because of underwater activity are you prepared dallas and underwater activity? >> let's talk to the object is

first. we don't know what mr. putin's object desire. i cannot view my personal opinion, not the opinion of the calm commander for the nato supreme allied commander in europe. i believe mr. putin wants in a very simple way he wants the westside of ukraine and he wants ukraine out of the west. i believe he will bring pressure on the government and kia and tell the simple is not. mr. putin wants ukraine as a part of his influence anyone a state that is not leaning towards nato on his borders and i believe he will continue to pressure towards that. that is my opinion. i know about as much as you have. i've been back here getting ready for testimony in the

senate. you have followed in the press and i'm not touching your question. i just don't know anymore. i think they are signaling that is what is spent in the press. i do not have any more exquisite information on that. >> general, in the past plants have called for the navy to begin deploying soldiers and romania to do the missile defense about this time. if that's still on track? if they get there and it becomes operational, i would change the situation you described between us and the russians or nato and the russians? >> so i have a broad understanding of the schedule. it is not down to and sailors are supposed to lead so i can't address specifically. what i can addresses the program is standing up this first night is on track.

to be intellectually honest, very slightly behind in construction, but the navy and mda is certain they can turn it over for technical occupancy. without getting charged me, it is on track. the other good news is it is on budget and that is also a good thing. right now we are on time to deliver and stay on schedule. it will be important. it will be the first of the shoreside that enable the adaptive approach and the european missile defense. our allies are coming along. >> it's been a big movement for the russians. they have been very upset about it. if it does say on track as you describe but that only increase is for everyone on the

consecrate now because that's wanting to upset them? >> as you know, we've had a long conversation with the russians. they understand the physics their public position is that it is not good. this hasn't changed in a long time. i am not sure this would be in a new incremental concern. >> you heard some back and forth this morning with senator reid. he said the u.s. should consider arming ukraine with the offensive weapons. could you expand on not what type of weapons are talking about? >> thank you orienteering. two and a half hours of one witness testimony this morning. left i thought it was pretty good and he said their companies had offensive revenues twice. what we are talking about is what we've always talked about

witches lethal weapons. i used those words and didn't even know i used them. we will claim that all up and make sure all understand this is not some big policy leap or change. it is a fighter pilot doing 2.5 plus hours for the testimony in the senate. my position has not changed and that is in ukraine, in georgia and all these other places, mordova, russia brings all of the powers to bear when they began to exert influence on the nation. diplomatic information, military and economic. in ukraine come intense diplomatic pressure of trying to discredit the government of ukraine and bring pressure against all of the supporting organizations in the west that are standing beside of ukraine. informational, i don't need to tell you all how strong deep

and wide the russian misinformation campaign is out there. militarily, this is the biggest change in the last two decades. we've seen how russia will use it military to change the international borders of the nation and economically we see intense economic and energy pressures. russia is bringing to bear all elements of national power. what i said continually hear not all that long ago as we should not unnecessarily take off the plate any of those tools to include military tools. [inaudible] >> i don't discuss individual weapons. i find all too often we get limiting conversations when we choose one thing to talk about. we've had an opportunity through our joint commission, u.s. european command has had over 25 visits into ukraine.

many of them before august of last year. we had to repeat a few because as russia came across the border in august of last year they very much changed the face and complexion of ukraine military. we went back and revisited with a firm understanding of what the military needs and the good news is that matches fairly closely to what it is asking the west to help with. broad categories of capabilities. i don't think it is useful to talk about the single one or two types of weapons. >> you have outlined the threat posed by russia and president putin and what you called a broad range of responses. it is fair to say the sense of frustration among some people the senate armed services committee today that the united states partners are not able to take action that would bring

about a result consistent with the u.s. national security policy goals and they find a description somewhat unsatisfied to read. what is your response when you send the frustration and the united states is not able to do more to bring about a report that is more favorable, what is your response? >> i have a role to play. it is my job to bring my best military ties to my leadership and that is what i do. i continue to work with the situation, observe, do what we are doing specifically in ukraine and other nations doing all the same things. worked to determine what is appropriate and i make my advice and pass the advice often we allow the policymakers to make their decisions. >> are you saying there isn't a more satisfactory option you can offer at this point?

>> i am having trouble understanding what you're asking me to say. i will create my own paper. i believe in the work done. we put the device on the table and the advice is being looked at. >> earlier today the top about sharing resources with path for calm. i would like a little more detail on the forces you share what percentage if you have the numbers and how often does this occur and i know you do not like hypotheticals, but if there were a major conflict on the european continent and the african continent, would you eucom and be able to handle this? >> that's a great question. i love to answer this one. the sharing agreement we have is unique. we didn't have this authority

before. because we are so closely linked with where we are in the world and so many of our allies there is no closely linked to the issues in africa and because so much of what happens in europe is affected by the flows out of africa, it is important that rod rodriquez and i have the ability to quickly as forces without going through a cumbersome process which goes back in the last of the transfer, it better. secretary hagel and his team but did a proposal was put forward that would allow us at the cocom level to agree to use forces back and forth without going through more cumbersome processes. literally just about everything inside eucom can be shared left and right if we have to do that. we at them this numerous times.

it saves great time in responding to an issue when rod and his team can come and say we really need these the 130s. we need this to do this and we are off. so this sharing arrangement i think is the model for the future. it kind of started off because general rodrigues and i have such a great relationship and we decided we are going to make this happen and then we were able to make it work officially through new authorities we have now. to your question on major conflict let me say that the forces in europe over the past 20 years have been sized for a situation looking at russia as a partner. we have come down 75% and our forces and our staff and headquartered the same way because russia was a part where

and we didn't need to grieve for structure. what we see now is russia has been treated it is not a partner. we also have new challenges to the south of foreign fighters pose another migrations. we had the issue is serious and iraq on our allies boarders comment saturday. it is fair to say we probably ought to look at the structure and see if it is now adequate to both asked for calm and eucom placed on it. >> can i get your assessment of the pace a the combat aviation patrols around europe, has not picked up in the last year? >> we saw an attack about this the last time is standing at this podium. there is a period where we had a spike at the aviation patrols. we are back down to the norms.

[inaudible] >> i can't tell you. there's all kinds of focused the russian military has right now including the ukraine and other places. they may put demands on the force structure they now have to address. i would not want to speculate but we are back to me pretty close to norm. >> are they to go back to one of the questions you're asked earlier today about turkey. as the operation continues in american pilots are flying over unfriendly areas. earlier he talked about how important these guys are to you. is there a discussion to bring non-in other areas to support the operation? >> this is a subject i just can't discuss with you right now. >> you also talked this morning about what are your concerns

about isis potentially using the refugee flow from north african, libya and other countries and do you believe isis is using flow? what is your assessment about penetration into the nato country and southern europe. what are your concerns about keeping new york safe? >> it is a tough question. i can tell you i'm turned that isis will use every vehicle available for moving their operatives back and forth into europe, into the united states come into the west wherever. i don't think there's any opportunity out there that i would not consider they have either used or will use in the future. i do believe many of these

transient types of capabilities to include this migrant flow across the mediterranean needs to be let out for the possibility that isis. i don't have anyone glittering examples to point to, but this is a concern we have. >> what is your concern about the ability right now to keep europe safe from isis and your current assessment about commercial aviation across europe since that is always a target. >> so i said before and i would still say the same thing, that the problem we are going to face firm foreign fighters of which isis could be a part of that but certainly foreign fighters will get worse before it gets better. i think we all realize that there r. a lot in iraq and syria

from other nations of the west to including the united states. while some of them will and are the call to stay there, others will return and they will return the skills and many of them with malicious intent. ii think the good news is that nations are beginning to take action in that for a while nations have been coming together and smaller coalitions in addressing via intel sharing, policing, et cetera, et cetera and now et cetera and now you see larger organizations taking it on. we'll take on how we address this. very beginning is a large and attention. some of our nations have been working deeply together for a long time. >> what is it you think nato can do and what do you want nato to do to fight this foreign fighter

flow into europe? >> i think they will begin to share intel and work inside the nations to understand this is bigger than a military problem. each nation handles intelligence in different ways and it is important that we do in all of government approach, meaning that an ally or ministry of interior functions or defense functions sharing together. what you will see and i really can't speak because it is an acm. we are just beginning. but you will see first if they brought beginning at intel sharing and being able to cooperate as we track these people. >> talking about the flow of europe do you know the fighters come in from syria and also do you think turkey is doing enough

to counter the flow inside syria? >> so, i don't think i have a number to get you on the number of fighters returning. i will make all kinds of news that i can't back up the specter of a number of other. we know there are returners because they've been involved with issues in our nation. so as you have seen three attacks from belgium to peres. i am often asked in a military relationship, military to military eucom to turkey, our milton of relationship is strong. our cooperation is strong.

we have seen them come and help us with other things phallic training and equipping another things going on. turkey is addressing problems at the border because they are problems that can just like they are problems to us. i don't share the concerns that some do that there are issues here. i see a strong ally who recognizes the problem and is working with us. >> general, why are you removing 150 helicopters from europe? >> i don't think that number is correct that you just quoted. you're asking about the aviation restructuring initiative. >> we will do the briefing now. it is available as most of our programs online at c-span.org. back live to capitol hill with house energy and subcommittee on investigations resume the hearing on abuse of prescription

drugs. >> -- to prevent their diversions and misuse while at the same time demands the solutions in excess of the medications for those who need them. medications are among the most effective painkillers that we have for the management of severe pain and the proper use can actually save lives. i think by act debating opioid receptors located in areas of the brain that they are very high concentration of opioid receptors and there is a problem. activation of these receptors is what is associated with addiction potential. there are also high levels of receptors and areas of the brain

to regulate breathing, which is why they are associated with the high risk of death from overdoses. we have heard devastating consequences for the escalation of the abuse of prescription medication. and our country the overdose death, the transition and associated infections with hiv and hepatitis c in increasing numbers on the neonatal syndrome. the in helping solve this epidemic to support the research that will help develop solutions to prevent and treat abuse of prescription medication that could be implemented now while at the same time funding research that in the future will provide transformative solutions. there are already evidence-based practice is better than shown to be effective in the prevention of overdose deaths and the use of medication for opioid addiction and the use of maalox

in to opioid overdoses. there are medications available to treat opioid addictions. which when used as part of a comprehensive addiction treatment plan have been shown to facilitate and reduce overdose and hiv infections. but coupled with prenatal care and pregnant women addicted to opiates, medications reduce the risk of a stature at prenatal complications. yet despite the strong evidence, less than 40% of those receiving treatment for opioid addiction get treated with medications. the funding research on implementation strategies with the use of medications for opioid addiction in the health care system. another component to the overdose is to expand the use of

maalox and a partner at to develop user-friendly effect did that will facilitate use by those that have absolutely no medical training. in addition, neither support research on the treatment of pain and the treatment of opioid addiction that will offer new solutions for the treatment of the disorder. examples, for example for the management of pain include development of drug combinations with less addiction potential that development do not rely on the opioid system and development of non-medicaid intervention such as use of magnetic or magical brain stimulation for pain management. examples are research on the treatment of opioid addiction

including the development of slow release formulation that need only once a month or once every six dosing which will facilitate compliance and the development will prove and the delivery of the drug into the brain interfering with the reviving effect in adverse consequences. ..

>> thank you. dr. throckmorton, five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking member degette, numbers of the subcommittee on doctor douglas throckmorton, deputy director for britain to to programs within fda's cedar center for drug evaluation and research. thank you for the opportunity to be a today to discuss fda's role in combating opiate abuse and encoding for safe use of these important trucks. our goal is to find a balance between needing to be paid oceans with paying including the use of opioids were appropriate and getting to reduce opioid death drug abuse. this work is being done together with other parts of the federal government and we know a successful and sustainable response must include federal and state government, public health officials, opa prescribes come addiction experts researchers, manufacturers and

patient organizations. for our part at the a plays a central role in the regulation and used of drugs from their discovery and throughout the marketing. for example win nt reduce the drug for possible market we also will approved drug label which includes information for approved uses of the medicine as well as information about potential safety risk. at the also follows drugs after they're marketed carefully including opioid drugs when mr. this enables us to write actions to improve their cpus such as changes to improve labeling. first area of activity i like to highlight is over to support the development of abuse of proof on militia to make didn't make opioid harder or less rewarding to abuse. what this is not a silver bullet that will prevent all of these, fda police abuse -- can help reduce. to incentivize fda issued final guidance on formulations guidance for using now to meet with sponsored invest in developing them.

today fda has received some 30 investigational new drug applications are manufactured to conditionally approved for opioid drugs. over all while we are in the early stages of development i'm encouraged by this level of work. fda conditions a day not far in the future when the majority of opioids in the marketplace are an effective abuse to -- next with regard to prescribe opioids we know they are powerful medicines and fda believes it is critically important to ensure the prescribers -- prescribers have a high called education about houston and pain management. of the passengers giftiest and several things to improve educational materials on opioids. for example, we recently finalize required changes to the approved labels of long acting opioids for changing the indication to inform the prescribers the truck should only be used for pain severna to acquire daily around-the-clock treatment when alternative

treatments not work. at the same time the fda strengthened significantly safety warnings on these opioids. we won't prescribers to use them with care and today the label for extended strong active opiate of the most restrictive any drugs that we have in the center. and have clear language that calls attention to their potentially life-threatening risks. fda is working to improve implementation of double for prescribers in other ways. i'm certain circumstances fda can require manufacturers as a part of the risk the population and mitigation strategy to address safety concerns such as opioid abuse. in 2012 fda required manufacturers to fund the development of unbiased continuing education programs on opioid prescribing practices for prescribers. in the first year since the program has been in place the proximate 6% of the 320,000 prescribers run 20000 of extended release long acting on opioids as comfortable of those

courses. we believe is trading for prescribers is important. we also support mandatory education for prescribers of opioids as called for by the administration and 2011 prescription drug plan and with the size and for the 40 national drug control strategy. finally fda is working with many other stakeholders including the agencies here today to export the best way to the overdose deaths by the expanded use of this together says that they can't and does save lives. fda is working to facilitate the development formulation that could be either used by anyone responding to an overdose. first fda meets with manufactures whenever needed and using whatever tools we can to expedite product development. we approved the first autoinjector collation which is meant to be a minister by people witnessing an overdose such as salmon members and caregivers. we completed that review and approve this product in 15 weeks. going forward to continue work

on how best to use. many of the efficacy at this table are planning a public meeting in july to bring together key stakeholders to do with questions of access company -- o. prescribing and state and local best practices. in conclusion, and decided we face an ongoing challenge and a dual responsibility, we must balance efforts to address opioid drug misuse abuse and addiction against the need for access to appropriate pain management. these are not simple issues and there are no easy answers. fda is taking on actions we hope will achieve this balance. we welcome the opportunity to work with congress come our federal partners the medical committee, advocacy organizations a multitude of interested communities and families to turn the tide on the devastating epidemic. thank you for this opportunity to testify. i look forward to answering any questions that again. >> thank you. >> chairman murphy, ranking member degette, i would like to thank you for inviting me here today.

i also like to thank the committee for your continued interest in the prescription of opioid abuse an overdose. my name is doctor debra houry and the record of the national center for injury prevention and control at the cdc. as a train emergency room physician i have seen firsthand the devastating impact of opioid addiction on individuals and families as well as the importance of prevention. together we have witnessed a deadly epidemic unfolding in state in communities across the country. the overdose epidemic is driven in large part by fundamental chances away health care providers prescribe opioid pain relievers. enough prescriptions were filled in 2012 for every american adult to have their own bottle of pills. as the amount of opioids prescribed increased and so has the number of deaths. mlm or the department initiatives i want to highlight cdc's work in developing

evidence and for opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain and providing direct support for states to implement multisector prevention programs. cdc's current developing guidelines for the prescribing of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. this undertake is responsive to a critical need in the field. these new guidelines will redefine best practices of opioid prescribing for chronic pain to make important advances in protecting patients. the audience for these guidelines are primary care practitioners to account for the greatest number of prescriptions for opioids compared to other specialties. the guidelines process is underway. our goldfish are draft for public comment by the end of this year. we have plans in place to encourage uptake and usage of the guidelines among providers which is key for improving prescribing practices. the second activity up like to highlight is our major investment and state level prevention. states are the front lines of this public health issue and cdc

is committed to equipping them with the expertise they need to reverse the epidemic and protect their communities. utilizing the newly appropriate $20 million we recently published a new funding opportunity called prescription drug overdose prevention for states. it builds upon existing cdc funded state programs and target states that have a high drug overdose burden and the domestic readiness needed to combat the epidemic. it requires collaboration across sectors for truly comprehensive response. the goals for this program are to make prescription drug monitoring programs more timely easier to use, and able to committee with other state pdmps. care for medicaid or worker's compensation intervention to protect patients at risk and bring data different provision -- prevention. states also will be given the flexibility to use the program

to respond to emerging crises and develop innovative interventions something know what works to reduce overdose and save lives and in their community. the development open a prescribing guidelines address a prevention program are two key ways that cdc's brought work on epidemic continues to the departments initiative. we're also examining the increase in heroin use an overdose. heroin overdose deaths have more than doubled since 2010 and prescription opioid abuse a key risk factor for heroin use has computed significantly to this rise in heroin use an overdose. we will leverage our scientific expertise to improve public health surveillance of heroin and evaluate effective strategy to prevent future heroin overdoses. addressing this complex problem requires a multifaceted approach and collaboration among a variety of stakeholders. but it can be accomplished. tick with the ongoing efforts of all the organizations represented here on this panel.

cdc is committed to tracking and extend epidemic, and providing health care providers with the data, tools and guidance they need. thank you again for the opportunity to be with you today and for your continued work. i look forward to question. >> thank you doctor. [inaudible] >> that morning, chairman murphy, ranking member degette. thank you for inviting century part of this hearing and thank you for your interest in this important public health issue. heroin use is lower, but to an 89,000 individuals reporting past month use but that's doubled in five years.

the nonmedical use the pain reliever has decreased some from 2009 to 2013 especially among young people, 12 to 17. however, and you know overdose is an overdose related deaths from prescription drugs in heroin has risen dramatically. as you've heard a few who need treatment are receiving the confidence of community based services they need to live life and recover to pre-of addiction. samhsa was prevention is a priority and recover is the goal. samhsa funds the american academy of addiction psychiatry together with six other medical societies to train subscribers the best approach is a pain management. samhsa educate physicians on medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction.

samhsa addiction technology transfer centers provide training and materials in every would use disorders and our cofounder with nida. to go prevent opioid overdose with a desk samhsa what it states that substance abuse treatment block grant funds may be used to purchase industry but naloxone. also in 2014 samhsa updated its opioid overdose prevention toolkit to educate individuals families, first responders and others about steps to prevent and reverse the effects of opiate overdoses include use of naloxone because computers are the most downloaded resources on samhsa's website. the president 2016 budget includes $12 million in discretionary grants for states to purchase and distribute naloxone, equip first responders and i was communities and support education on the use of naloxone and other strategies. samhsa supports medication-assisted treatment as part of recovery oriented person centered care model.

vacation assisted treatment is not meant as a stand-alone approach but rather is designed to include medication, counseling, vehicle therapies and recovery support. in march 2015 samhsa issued revised federal guidelines for oprah treatment programs which highlight this recovery oriented care model encourages the use of any of the three at the print medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder based on an assessment of each individual's unique need. samhsa is taking an integrated clinical care approach as part of a new 2015 grant program to expand and enhance the visibility of medication-assisted treatment and other clinically appropriate services in states with the highest rates of opioid admission. the price of 2015 budget proposes to double this program. in collaboration with the doj on samhsa added links to 2015 treatment drug court grant requirement to ensure drug court clients will not be compelled to stop or be prevented from using medication if it is prescribed or dispensed consistent with a

license prescribers recommendation for a valid prescription. samhsa regulates opioid treatment programs which are expected to provide a full range of services for the patients. in collaboration with the drug enforcement administration samhsa provide waivers to physicians which integrate opiate use disorders. samhsa also finds efforts to prevent prescription opioid misuse and heroin use. for example, in 2014 samhsa's strategic prevention framework partnership for success program may prevent introducing heroin use one of its focus areas for lower prescription drug prescription abuse and underage drinking. for 2016 the president has proposed $10 million for the strategic prevention framework two of the states views of data including pdmp david to identify and assess communities at high risk for the non-medical use of

prescription drugs. we want to thank you again for taking on this issue of allowing samhsa an opportunity to share some of its its efforts with you before to answering your questions. >> dr. conway, you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman murphy, ranking member degette and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me to discuss cms or torture all medicare and medicaid beneficiaries are receiving the medicines they need while also reducing and preventing prescription drug abuse. as we for from other witnesses come opioid analgesics have increasingly been intricate and drug overdose deaths over the last decade. i understand the importance of this issue. cms recognize our responsibility to protect the health of medicare and medicaid beneficiaries by ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent overuse and abuse of opioid. while ensuring beneficiaries get access needed medication and appropriate treatment for substance abuse disorder. since its inception in 2006 the medicare part d prescription

drug benefit has make medicines more available and affordable leading to improvements in access to prescription drugs and better health outcomes. despite these successes, part d is not in a from a nationwide epidemic of opioid abuse. cms has broadened its initial focus on strengthening beneficiary access to prescribe drugs also addressed potential fraud and drug abuse by mickey shorter part d sponsors implement effective safeguards and provide coverage for drug therapy that meet safety and the passionate advocacy standard with the broader reforms will help protect beneficiaries of the damaging effects associate with prescription drug abuse and to prevent detect overutilization related to prescription drugs. a centerpiece of our strategy is to strengthen cms is marketing a part d plan sponsors drug utilization management programs to prevent overutilization of these medications. .com push this golden medicare part d overutilization monitoring system, oms come was intimate and 2013.

to the system cms provides reports to sponsor a beneficiaries with potential opioid overutilization identified the analysis of prescription drug data entered beneficiaries referred by the cms ever program integrity. sponsors are expected utilize the recent legislation marketing tools to prevent continued organization of opioid. recent it has shown from 2011-2014 the oms has reduced the number of potential opioid over utilizes the approximate 26%. cms also utilizes the drug integrity contract or medical discharge was identified and investing potential fraud and abuse in developing cases for referral to law enforcement agencies. in 2013 cms directed the medicare increase its focus on proactive data analysis in part be. cms has utah will making authority to make new tools to take action is problematic prescribers and pharmacy. we finalize provision of requires subscribes apart the trucks to liberal or have a valid opt out affidavit on file

and establishes a new revocation authority for abusing prescribing patterns. state medicaid agencies have also taken action to tackle the opioid abuse epidemic efforts include expanding and medicaid benefit to include behavioral health services for those with addiction prescription drugs armies the management review program. also cms has not become what services are provided in each medicaid program to prevent and treat opiate abuse we encourage an increasing effort by states to the effective chassis benefits for the population to we launched a medicaid innovation accelerator program to provide states with technical assistance and other types of support to address this important issue. cms information with add samhsa in an age issued an information bulletin on medication assisted treatment for substance abuse disorder and a medicaid program. this guidance outline a combination of medication enable therapies is the most effective combination of treatment. week issued a similar bulletin

focus on the services and pediatric and youth population. cms is dedicate providing the best possible care to beneficiaries with opioid addiction to working with party sponsored state medicaid programs to effective safeguards to prevent opioid abuse and treat patients effectively with substance abuse disorder. cms has made progress to more work to be done. cms is undertaking multiple policy initiative and innovation to reduce the rate of opioid addiction in both medicare and medicaid. in previous testimony i've never had family here for time to think in the 20 thank my mother, diane, and my son jack was out of school, as was my wonderful wife heather and daughters. and without their love into the i would not be able to work on issues like this. that our crews important to our nation. thanks. >> thank you dr. kim and thank you for recognizing your family on testifying david everybody else russia apparently nobody

else got the memo. ice want to start off by saying if talent and dedication alone could solve this crisis we would be there with the testimony of today and of the days, but we still a problem to let me start with asking a few questions. first or director botticelli we office of national drug control policy, uses the term recovery. does it mean to include patients with opioid addiction in a treatment program and so using heroin or other illicit drugs are producing that's not recovery? >> from our perspective and also as a person -- clearly we want to make sure that people are continuing to progress in the recovery and free from subsequent is the ultimate goal of recovery program. i think everyone would agree on that. but we also the substance used in opioid use disorders are chronic disorder and oftentimes and even my own age there and show me that people often wet

springs relapse and will often i think see multiple attempts at treatment to get to the final goal of long-term recovery and long-term absence but what to make sure we continuing to engage with patients the were moving them toward better health, better recovery and being freed from substance abuse as part of a long-term recovery. >> we also heard from testified last week but does not a uniform definition of recovery. this is the talent pool. you were the one to duties. you all meet on a regular basis to talk about these issues? when was the last time you all got together to talk about policy issues? >> let me start because it's actually part of our statutory authority that we set in conjunction with not just our hhs partners but with all of the federal agencies that have able and substance abuse and particularly and opioid abuse disorder. we've been engaged with beauty

and the g8 and the bureau of prisons stated so you meet regularly to? >> we do. we have quarterly meetings to focus on where we are -- >> let me move on. that's going to be important in ms. heitkamp let me ask a question. in your response to our bipartisan letter of march 18 concerning the national register of evidence-based programs, you noted quote new submission and review procedures will improve the rigor of the registry and bring us into coastline with other registries about is that program and the federal government. prior to entering into fistula 2014 contact didn't samhsa view of the scientific base needed to be strengthened, yes or no? >> thank you for the question. we thought the process that we use for determining what practices were reviewed needed to be strengthened, and in the process we have also increased the rigor with which we look at them. >> can get it's a list of what you should be some of the models

within a federal registry that we can review as part of that as evidence-based programs and? >> certainly. >> okay, thank you. your response also indicates an outside contractor will assume the role of a deeper determined which studies and outcomes are reviewed in the screen and review of an intervention with him a preventive bias in favor of intervention developers. was samhsa our system for vetting and selecting interventions include prone to any kind of developer buys or competent enters? was that a concern speak with yes, it was a concern. it was pretty much developer driven. so a developer had to want their practice to be reviewed and then they had some control over what research we look at. we change that with a new contract which began last year and we will help decide priorities together with the public input but the contractor will help us with -- look more objective evidence.

>> i just got a note actually an article. this is whenever constituents, dr. frank in eastern colorado? colorado? i don't want to take all of your colorado thunder but it made reference to the increase use of emergency departments and it's interesting they said the reason for this is personal they said 10.5 million people estimated, people could emergency room for treatment for withdrawal but also many trying to get more opiates. and when you have users with open a prescription for more than one physician to do more likely to be involved in risky or practice. i would if you need you to comment on it doesn't they were trying to address. dr. volkow, utah but issues with prescribing practice. and summer youth comment on those issues? >> yes, and i think the article i think you referring to a new journal or new england journal of medicine article that shows

there's been every significant number of cases in the intensive care unit. these don't reflect the black there are many women are actually being prescribed opioid medications during the pregnancy itself. and actually based on another study shows 20% of women who are pregnant will receive an opioid medication. which again highlights the need to enforce better that the guidelines on the management of pain need to be enforced in better ways. and this is also recognize my studies have actually evaluated the extent to which physicians are following guidelines by the main medical organizations as it relates to the management of pain. so that is an area where needs to be an aggressive increase in the education and enforcement of

guidelines. >> i'm apathetic i would ask unanimous consent i can submit this research article for the record. is to get you are recognized for five minutes. >> turn one. dr. volkow, as i mentioned in my opening statement, you are one of the world's top experts on the issue of treating addiction. briefly, what does the body of scientific evidence to show regarding the effectiveness of methadone and his treatment of opioid abuse disorder? >> what the research has shown and it is shown not just for methadone, more recent medication, that this medication when used as part of comprehensive program for the treatment of opioid addiction are quite effective and a significant are the outcomes of individuals being able to say on the one hand absence from the drug or to the degree like the of -- would also protect protects them against the adverse outcomes such as

overdose. >> so in light of those who studied you also said in your testimony that existing evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies are highly underutilized across the united states. and last week we had an expert to our panel that very few patients with opioid addiction to the seed treatments that have been proven most effective your he had was the type of his rapid detox followed by abstinence-based bigotry i wonder if you don't don't understand this good why do have a situation where people are not getting evidence-based treatment? >> one of the problems come is a complex problem and many reasons why they're not getting adequate treatment including the fact of the education of to the proper screening and management including health care system. then you have a whole infrastructure that has developed which has been stigmatized.

so, therefore, the likelihood of people accessing medical care is much lower. and then, of course there is a difference between states in the way that they implement the treatment. all of these factors account for the current situation. >> dr. frank, do you have anything to add? >> yes. yes, i do. one thing that's very important to remember is that overall we treated 10% of the people with these disorders. so it's not surprising that people are not getting evidence-based treatment because of not getting treatment period. the second part is why are they getting evidence-based treatment among those who do? and i think their insurance dynamics that hopefully we are fixing. there are as dr. volkow said access to trained professionals who are trained and then you are in a sense trying to kind of

get the systems and infrastructures aligned so that the support of the best practices. >> and dr. houry, several other witnesses including you mentioned that several other states in this. can you talk about that for a minute speak was absolutely. i think states have different populations from different issues don't give a prescription drug monitoring programs and so handling these so they can best identify whether it's the state medicaid program other high-risk programs of patients and how does target him and that's why the program fcc additional helpful because we have a higher level to work across the state -- >> do you think states have work to do in terms of implementing these programs that are science-based and that work? >> you know, i think we're starting to get, like a program itself is live in existence for successful losing great progress it if you look at some the policy states are implementing nursing reductions in illegal

doctor shopping a patient's going to different doctors because of utilizing prescription drug market programs. although it's early in the state i'm optimistic we are making progress in the state. >> dr. volkow, were to come back to you. one of our other experts last week said patients and families need to know that detoxification treatment and drug counseling our associate with the third high risk of relapse. i'm wondering if you can tell us what the science shows. is this type of treatment generally effective or less effective? what is the research of? >> that research has shown that in general classification of patients this is what increase mortality like was just mention. these reflect the fact addiction is a chronic disease and the changes -- must come just a few stopped taking the drug. what they do is just remove that

depends that assume the addiction is good and these are two independent process. as a result the patient feels that are safe and they relapse because they are still addicted. many times the overdose. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> him now we are going to go to mr. collins for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is truly is a fascinating topic we are discussing and it's obvious there's a very easy solution. i mean we've heard it's a chronic disease, 10% are seeking treatment. i guess my question maybe for ms. hyde in samhsa is, sort of with pregnant women you know and have young kids at home and inpatient treatment might be the preferred. we just can't let perfect be the enemy of good. what other options are you looking at for people who can't

defend . is not going to enter inpatient so they may be part of the 90% not getting treatment at all. some treatment better than no treatment come as frustrating as that might be. what are your comments to the young mother executes at home and she's pregnant and she defended and she can't, she just didn't go into an inpatient center. what do we do for the patient? >> thank you for the question, the issue of pregnant and parenting women is a big one interview. we do have a small program to address that issue but you're right, it's a residential-based program. we have increasingly been looking at ways to take what was we learned in the program about the best ways to treat pregnant and parenting women come and take it into other settings. whether it's opioid treatment programs or the training that we do for physicians who are using medication-assisted treatment to do with pregnant and parenting women.

so we're trying in every way we can to make the services available to those women. >> so again with pregnant we are looking at other treatments, i guess whether that's buprenorphine or methadone. are there studies that show that has an impact on the fetus and a baby? >> your right to be concerned about the child. what we see is that this prevents death. it prevents addiction of the baby. it prevents a lot of other issues that may come with allowing or the young woman to continue with the illicit drug use or the prescription opioid misuse. so definitely providing treatment helps both the woman and the child. >> now, as you counsel this woman what kind of reaction are you getting? audio recognizing that make you think a genuine concern they have for the baby, i mean very

much a competent balancing act. what kind of reaction are you getting from the women come acknowledging the problem and wanting to treat at? >> you know most pregnant and parenting women really want to do the best thing for their babies and want to do the best thing for for themselves. but as you for addiction of chronic disease and it's very difficult. it changes the brain, changes the ability to make decisions. the women who are in the programs that we provide support for find it very helpful program with the kind of support because we provide a range of programs and we have recently introduced medication-assisted treatment into those programs as well. >> are these women find you on their own or are there physicians guiding them to you? >> the women who come to our programprogram come from a variety of places. some from the correctional system, some from physicians can sum from family can sum from self referral.

so they come from a number of places and we don't make a distinction between where they come from in terms of providing the care. >> something this committee is very concerned with come and again try to thank you for on this hearing and for all of your testimony. i wish it wasn't easy solution. there just doesn't appear to be one so this will have to be addressed on a lot of fronts. without i yield back. >> on thank you mr. chair but let me join in welcoming the conway family to the dream. let me compliment the honorable michael botticelli for having the origins and the twins congressional district of new york. to welcome all. what is the biggest concern i hear from individuals and families struggling with addiction is the difficulty they have accessing treatment. agenda within mental health parity at addiction equity act as well as with our affordable care act millions more people

have gained access to mental health and substance abuse services. however, recent reports have laid bear the fact that these new treatments as options sometimes exist on paper only. so my question, first to assistant director frank dr. frank him, what is hhs planning to do to increase the public disclosure of the medicated management practices ensures use both on the commercial side and on medicaid and chip so that consumers can truly evaluate their health plans to ensure they are in compliance? >> thank you for the question. we too view the mental health parity act as an incredibly important opportunity to increase the use of evidence-based practice and access to treatment. we are doing a number of things. we work with both the department of labor on the erisa side the

commercial health insurance life. we train the erisa investigators in how to detect deviations from parity arrangements with insurance. so they're out of their fully trained now working on these issues. we have a group within hhs who regularly provide technical assistance to state insurance commissioners and works with them to resolve complaints as they arise. and we can continue to series of forums and technical assistance around the country and we're working with stakeholders some of whom are in this room today, to improve our ability to ask the disclosure and to offer up consumers the opportunity to really make that evaluation that you referred to. >> thank you, assistant secretary. director botticelli can would like to talk about another barrier to treatment for some patients and presidents have

suggested that some states are denying patients access to drug courts if they are receiving medication-assisted treatment. i understand this has been a problem in kentucky, at least according to some press accounts. can you explain what is going on here, given the importance from what are some judges attempting to cut patients off of medicines that can actually help them recover? >> thank you, congressman from as many of my close to talk about to become increasing access communication is a treatment along with other behavioral therapies is the best course of to do for people with an overused disorders. unfortunately, one of the asset issues we find in addition to issues around payment have been particularly lack of access within the criminal justice system and we know that many people with overused disorders are ending up in our system. drug courts, some drug courts have not adapted policies that nation association of drug court

professionals endorse in terms of ensuring that people who are coming to an overused disorders get access to those medications as well as not predicating their participation that they get off his medication. part of a we've been doing on the federal level is using our federal contracting standards to ensure that it was opioid use disorders, whether it's a neutral court or treatment program or in other venues are offered access communication for treatment and are not denied participation based on the fact that they are on physician prescribed medication. >> dr. volkow, on that same issue do you agree with the assessments because i agree very much and at the same time we're developing alternative that may be more amenable towards the criminal justice system, so there is no reason why should i get access communication. >> okay. and another barrier that patient

safety is a lack of available treatment providers who can prescribe m.a.t.s. director botticelli, can you divide on the providers who can prescribe buprenorphine, for example? what are some of the reasons for the shortage of what we do to address at? >> one of the other opportunities we have is ensuring that all of our treatment programs, i'd offer medication-assisted treatment or to refer to programs that medication-assisted treatment. and analysis of her treatment programs show that a very low percentage of them have incorporated the medication-assisted treatment into the programs. some of this quite honestly has been by misunderstanding and his divide between actions based year and medication-assisted treatment you think is really unfortunate. so we really want to make sure that if a client is entering a treatment program that has particularly federal funding,

needs to offer by way of its own offering or through referral dedication assisted treatment spent thank you very much and thank you to the entire panel for guiding us in this crisis situation. >> i want to ask clarification about the drug courts and use of medication-assisted treatment. so you recommend medication-assisted treatment as part of an option package although you say want to give people -- doesn't require a recommended practice for agencies to get drug courts to do this quest does it require regulatory or does require a logistics solution from us to do that? >> we've been doing that as a condition of their federal drug court language. again we want this to be decided by an expert in addiction services in consultation with but we didn't want to have -- >> i did mention in consultation

with ondcp and also with the department of justice we have changed the link in our request for application or drug courts so that they can't require us to either get off of or not be on medication assisted treatment if it is prescribed october by prescription or certified program. so i just want to add, what you can do for you can make the federal funding contingent on full programs but we can't force the states or whatever regulatory agency setting of the drug court to offer this. they just can't get federal money if they don't offer it. >> as a former state administered states to put a crucial role. there are many programs out there that actually don't receive federal funding or drug court that don't receive federal funding to we hope that our policies and procedures are adopted by those non-federally

funded programs. but states play key role in licensing treatment programs and they i think and look at the opportunity of increasing for ensuring that they'd licensed treatment programs have the same kind of language. >> thank you to speak at states, go to the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes. >> thank you again for these hearings we've been having on this topic. as an engineer i need to see things in perspective. and so i've been following this over the last four years in congress and especially on this committee come been trying to look at this issue and i think one of the last meeting we just havehad, i tried to put in perspective by saying, you said there were 44,000 overdose deaths. i want people to understand that's more than died in vietnam in combat. i do know the american public understands that. and everyday on the news nbc or

whatever there was compared body counts and they had, people were outraged over that. i'm not getting the sense of outrage over every. we lose as many people to drug overdose as we did in a 10 year war in vietnam. i'm concerned when i had a firm in west virginia one in five babies born in west virginia and i'm sure it may be one in for another state or so the one in five babies, they have been infected with drugs. i keep thinking in perspective -- i keep things in in perspective i think enjoyed the overdose rate is approximate 21 permitted in america it is seven to 10 times that amount. i get a little on the verge of outrage, father of four and grandfather of six and icd is a what we are giving our kids.

this is what the future is to advocate this testimony from the panel of seven and the seven before the. the 74th after quite frankly i get confused because i don't know what the priority is. for the business community, and you all here in washington, everyone loves to plan. but they don't carry out. that may be insulting and i don't mean it in an insulting fashion, but we still only a 44,000 people who die between now and next year because we don't have -- i would like to thank if we can come up with one plan one way at least one, prioritize it, what's the one thing. and that everything went into. at manhattan project and go after that one solution and see if it doesn't start the ball rolling in the right way. and we can do two, three, four with but my focus but i don't see it focused that i didn't sit focus on you. i heard something of a giveaway

who might be able to approach this problem because everyone loves to plan but the implementation falls short. sensed your meeting on a regular basis, could you come up with one idea to where we are to begin, to where we can. >> excomm everything come we can really dig into that and then we can have plan b c. and d. let's achieve want instead of continuing to meltdown as we do with this. i do want to see another statistic of 44,000 more people die of overdose. i hesitate to ask can you come up with an idea today in the timeframe, is there one, just one of the we should focus on? what's the best way? is that in the drug use them is that in real time on purchasing of prescription drugs that is a national database? is that the number one thing we should do? my god, the federal government

just changed the sensing guidelines for everyone and they said if you can't with 50 hits a better one you get probation. what are we doing? are we fighting heroin or not? i'm really crushed with this so give me some more guidance on plan one. [inaudible] spent i appreciate your attention to this. myself and many of our colleagues have been doing this work for a long time and i think we are filled with a sense of tragedy in terms of where we are. and know that we can do that and know that we can work with congress. you asked for one to i think there are three carries and some of it articulate and the sectors plan. we cut to change prescribing patterns into we're prescribed way too much medication and that starting the trajectory. we need to increase our capacity to treat the disease so that people who go down that path have adequate access. and a third is where we need to

focus on reducing overdose death. those are three areas of think we could work with congress on to a look at how to increase our effort. >> let me add on to that. it seems people from west virginia also think alike that way. power secretary who shares the same experience as you do has pushed us to focus and to take action in those three areas. and with it this year we more than quadrupled our funding in those areas and we are going to triple that again if our plans go through. and these are the three focus folks at because that's what evidence as we should be doubling down and that's what is guiding us. >> thank you. is the second to ask you for legislation on this to facilitate -- >> the are some legislative proposals, and some of it is just increasing some of the

discretionary funds. we get some additional appropriations of this year. in the present -- >> please let us not that there's enabling language we have. ms. clark of new york, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, trick you into a ranking member. i'd like to focus my questions on the prevention side of the equation, how do we prevent opioid a ditch in the first place. dr. volkow why they can't action on a point that mr. botticelli made just a moment ago about way too many prescriptions, this is to you wesley prescriptions being written for opioids? our physicians not getting the appropriate level of training and education in pain management? responsible opiate prescribing practices? what would you say speak was

they are both are actually happened is we have to recognize that there's another epidemic of chronic pain in our country contested 109 people according to the institute of medicine. as a result of the pressure of needing to address this problem they require hospitals and physicians and hospitals ask questions about pain and treat them. this was 2000 the problem was that was not an associated with the education required in order to be able to properly screen pain but also to manage it. and to manage it and just opioid medications adequately. so there was a big gap between the need to implement better treatment for pain but inadequate education of the system. so that is a major problem. i think in terms of the prevention we have to recognize two aspects that's different from others. one of them we do have individuals that get the medication because they want to get high. but then there's the other

element that is asking, individual properly prescribed the medication because they have been. and in the past it was believed he got in opioid and yet paying will never become addicted. now the data shows that's not correct. we don't exactly know what percentage of individuals will be treated for the pain will become addicted. the range goes enormously on non-to something like 40, 50. were no real idea. what we need, and that's what i highlighted the notion of we need be very aggressive in the health care provided on the screen and management of pain and also be very aggressive on the treatment come on the education of health care providers for the recognition of substance abuse disorder so they can determine who is vulnerable. when a person who's profiting treated is transitioning. >> thank you very much. director botticelli, does ondcp believe that the federal

government should mandate continuing medical education on responsible opioid, prescribing practices as a precondition of registration to prescribe controlled substances? can you elaborate on how that would work if that's the case speak with we do support mandatory prescriber education. it's very clear that everyone want to prevent both prescription drug nations and when used in overdoses we need to stop prescribing these medications so liberally. there was a recent gao report that showed that physicians get a little to no pain prescribing, actually veterinarians get more pain prescribing and physicians in training. so we don't think it's overly burdensome to require physicians in this epidemic to have an education i think as you talk about we would have to work with the legislature to look at changes to the controlled substances act to ensure that a certified continuing medical

education program would be linked to the dea licensure process and that we would monitor both, oversee those courses that we believe has the core competencies we think are important and monitor who takes those. >> very well. thank you very much. dr. throckmorton, manufactures of opioid pain relievers are currently required to offer free voluntary education to physicians. however, as i understand it physician participation rates for this voluntary educational courses are fairly low, is that correct? >> we do have those programs in place. they were put into place about 18 months ago and so the initial year was spent putting into place process to allow the education to be available for prescribers to make use of it. during the time we saw about 20,000 prescribers that are

using extended. signed a. it is progress but we hope it is in second year of which will end in july of this year we will see a large increase in terms of uptake and use that is education. we have been working with the continuing education community to make better use of it to make it more available. we are optimistic the we hope we will see more use. it's one of two pillars of education from our perspective. combined with mandatory education that mr. botticelli just spoke about i believe both of these things provide important opportunities to educate prescribers. >> very well. i yield back. >> ms. brooks of indiana for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for continuing to focus on this critical subject of her computer i want to start with you dr. volkow.

we talked about how the opioid addiction facing the country is in large part due to chronic pain come and she mentioned 109 people suffer from chronic pain. i heard up to one in three americans actually, possibly suffer from chronic pain. and one of the goals of this is a tighter evidence-based treatment and new treatments and try to find out what it is that is working. and i visit one treatment doesn't work for everyone as we for. but it is compelling about in the course of examining this that are some technologies that are new not completely new but one thing i was told about spinal cord stimulation which targets and nerves with electrical impulses rather than drugs and that clinical studies that showed it to be safe than 4000 patients have received the stimulator. so it obviously is a device technology that can actually stop the stimulation and can

help hopefully end of that addiction but yet nah hasn't concluded that in its draft and strategy to get didn't mention technologies like the. can you talk at all about why it wouldn't be promoting this idea improved type of technology, and are there other technologies we are to be talking about other than medication for chronic pain speak with thanks to the question that indeed this is an area that is rapidly evolving and if it's not magic is because many of the findings are very way to recent. the one you are coming to in terms of stimulation is one we are also promoting research and the same strategy can be utilized to be able to actually inhibit the emotion of the brain. researchers utilizing a wide variety of tools and technologies that have a go as part of our work initially to understand the brain that they

can highlight, but it brings up something that i think indeed that is acos in this epidemic, they need that we have to dispel better strategies to the management of chronic pain. the physicians they don't know what to do and they receive in opioid even though the evidence of not really show us ever effective for the management of chronic pain but there are not many out there. recognize that this is an area where we require the best resources for having alternative for patients suffering from chronic pain is an extremely important part of initiative of addressing -- >> how would you recommend what increase in patient access and educate more physicians about this type of technology? >> this is a new technology. some of the actually the evidence is just emerging to go out to be to the fda for approval and then physicians as part of the training should be exposed to the. and i would say, just

highlighting because michael botticelli very clearly the leader, i also think it's important that medical students as part of their basic training have an understanding of these technologies because pain is part of every medical condition almost every medical condition. >> i would like to ask you mr. botticelli, my state of indiana recently passed a law allowing physicians to prescribe, locks on to parents -- naloxone to others and friends giving them greater access to the reversal heroin drug. would you speak as to what's known about the impact of the naloxone programs and whether you have concern about whether the naloxone might encourage actually more risk taking? because i met with law enforcement who said they had given people, naloxone had saved her life in a couple weeks later stages of life again with naloxone. so i am somewhat and i want to

save lives and we must, but yet we know there are not enough treatments. this is a huge problem. .. we did appear reviewed study that showed when you introduce naloxone into a community over those rates go down and the more naloxone you introduce, the better the scale affect.

one of the pieces we are concerned about that there is no evidence to show naloxone distribution actually increases drug use, some of the issues you mentioned become critically important. over thoses are often seen as a significant motivator for people to seek care but having treatment on demand is a particular issue, treatment on demand in rural communities is particularly an issue. interventions at emergency departments get people into care become critically important. while we know addiction is a chronic disease and some people continue to use when you have these adverse events what we also need to know, we have to have a comprehensive response not just saving someone's life. >> i completely agree and i hope the result in indiana proved to be the same as in your state and i yield back. thank you. >> you are recognized for five minutes from oklahoma.

>> before i get to questions i have a follow-up question. last time you were in front of this committee, really appreciate you coming back. we have discussed your web site, and effective use of taxpayer dollars. we are in the process of evaluating that. had you finished the process yet? >> the process continues. thank you for asking the follow-up question. the web site you indicated, one of the web site we were in a process of reviewing, it was originally developed based on knowledge. >> 3 to 6-year-old for suicide prevention. heavy finished that one yet? >> would you were concerned about. we determined that the website hadn't been updated in a while

so it needed to be updated so we had taken it down and we are in the process of updating it. >> can you give me some process report so i know where you are? we want to make sure taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. to get to the questions, a simple yes or no. they recognize naloxone used as a therapy for chronic pain? >> methadone is approved for king. >> specifically to the first line, the first line of the stands. >> is one of the medications we have approved for payne. i will say if you look at methadone, the labeling we have it calls it out. at particular characteristics make it challenging to use for payne. >> that would be no for the first line. >> prescribe risking carefully before using methadone. there are things that make it

challenging product to use. it is approved for use in that setting. >> the fda put out a warning about the drug's safety and basically said you guys should not should not be referred as a referred therapy unless special instructions and education was on to it. i would take that if the fda by this statement would be a no, that you would not recommend it and have a lot of consideration taken. >> i would need to look at the statement and get back to you about the specifics of it. it is variable patient to patient and has unique cardiac toxicity is. there are other drugs useful for pain and -- >> all i am looking for is yes or no. to get to another farther down

the line appreciate you being here, that is my sister's last name. >> very good last name. >> i have three beautiful niece is that the spelling usually gets mixed up. doctor what about the cdc? do you consider methadone a first-time treatment for paying? >> we focus really on primary prevention and not as much of the care. i refer to sister agencies on that. >> which would be? >> the panel that is here, fda. >> the statement of the fda you heard about. would you follow the statement i am assuming? >> i would follow his statement. i don't have a personal opinion on methadone for pain. it is not something i did in my prior practice. >> dr. connolly i am always jealous when people have their family with them. i have five wonderful kids.

if you want to see me cry that is the only thing that makes me cry. >> how are your kids doing? >> thanks. i appreciate that. i will take a deep breath and wipe that tear away. are you aware methadone accounts for 30% of overdose deaths accounting for 2% of the prescriptions prescribed for chronic pain? >> i am aware of a higher percentage of deaths compared to prescriptions because of the long half-life and risks described. >> would you recommend it as a first-time defense for pain? >> i do not as a practicing physician typically use methadone as a first defense but i think it depends on the individual patient characteristics and we defer to the physician's judgment. >> according to the pure research they put out a deal that says methadone is available in low-cost generic form and is

considered a preferred drug in many states by medicaid programs despite fda warnings about drug safety and statement by the american academy of pain medicine that insures should not be referred to this therapy that is specially educated and provided to the individual. i just wonder if overall i would think we are considering it not being there. why is it still listed as a first line with medicaid when we are seeing so many dead. it makes you think the cost of a life is not more valuable than the cost of a low drug? >> i make a few points, statutory leave the medicaid programs have the ability to set their preferred drug lists, it have taken a couple actions, working with samson and others on this panel like a bullet into the medicaid programs talking

about this issue and a complete array of steam at the risks of methadone and other options and import lee as others have said the importance of behavioral treatment and medication treatment. i called out medicated evasion accelerator program, the first area working on substance abuse, we have over 30 states involved taking a comprehensive approach to the program that is appropriate substance abuse treatment including medicaid and other therapies. >> i yield back. >> i have a follow-up question. >> one of the questions or statistics i was giving you in talking about prospective the situation they are facing in europe when the average is 21

per million. that is the average. italy is below that the netherlands, belgium, greece, france, poland, portugal the czech republic, slovakia hungary, turkey romania all have less than that significantly less. what are they doing differently. in europe. than we are in america. are we learning anything from them? >> something we're doing the point, if you look at the united states from the medications we made consuming 95% of the total production in the world. and nation that is so much in pain we require maximum amount of medications or something we are doing in terms of access

that is inadequate and to raise the notion that we are overprescribing of the education on the one hand but at the same time which is not exclusionary, sometimes we are undertreating patientss with payne. and we have it both ways. we oversprescribe making these drugs available and easily diverted and prescribing them to those that don't need them and also results in other consequences. you don't see that level of prescriptions in european countries. >> why not? are there doctors more sensitive to this issue. and trial lawyers. what is the difference between

it? something is wrong. >> exactly the way we say, we have to aggressively institute the health care providers on the proper screening and management of pain, is a crucial component and digit keating them about the adverse effects of these disorders and we need to face the fact the we need to provide alternative treatments for the management of chronic pain that are effective. >> thank you very much for that. >> where my going? >> i realized mr. botticelli mentioned in his opening. i wanted an unrelated follow-up. you mentioned having a crisis in

indiana with respect to a community of 4300 people, an outbreak of hiv due to needle exchange and many of you have been following what is happening and the number of citizens in indiana who now have contracted hiv because in all likelihood heroin addiction. prescription drug addiction and possibly apps addiction as well. very curious since i have this incredible panel of experts here what you might say to our state and health professionals dealing with this crisis to state and local government officials, what advice or thoughts do you have for our state? truly if we could this is a crisis in our state that could be in any state in the country.

mr botticelli and anyone else who might comment please. >> first of all, just about all the agencies coordinate on a daily basis in tight coordination with the indiana health department to make sure we are giving scott county the resources they need to do that. >> i am sure dr. adams appreciates that. >> we have seen over 145 cases of hiv now. one of the consequences we have seen nationally is increases in viral hepatitis as it relates to sharing needles. it points to some issues about access to treatment services. what is happening in indiana, scott county is emblematic of the potential we could see another part of the country that point to some of the issues we have been talking about in terms of making sure people have access to good care and infection diseases and substance care, they have adequate access

to clean syringess, increasing infection in this most poignant case of what we need and timely access to treatment and all areas to do that continue to engage with folks in scott county to make sure whatever we do on the federal side can leave the the situation. >> i'm really proud of all the efforts cdc is doing on the ground and convention with agencies. and i agree with dr. botticelli about the treatment as well as hiv therapy is. the other thing is indiana is no. 9 in the nation for prescribing and so there's a lot that can be done when you are looking at trying to stop the epidemic so looking at using the prescription drug monitoring program with better guidelines of people don't get addicted to opioids and inject them. that is the third component we need to add.

>> administrator hide. >> we got caught by surprise with the indiana epidemic of hiv and this is the fastest growing incidence of hiv cases since it entered the united states but there has been an extraordinary advance in hiv that has emerged over its past few years which is if you initiate someone with antiviral therapy not only are you in improving their outcome to decrease their activity. one of the things i would have suggested to do is you immediately freed them with antiviral therapy. the activity will dramatically decrease. this is another aspect that relates to the issue of giving

care. for substance abuse treatment. >> we understand there are legal barriers we are talking to indiana about. and there's not a lot of wavered positions and of the treatment programs we are definitely working alternatives. >> thank you for allowing me -- >> a quick follow-up question. the subcommittee will testimony from the program director of the stanford university addiction medicine program that are 2 is an artifact of the past. she told us the consent requirements are so stringent that two doctors treating the same patient for a be addiction can communicate with each other about the patient's medical condition and cited the

subcommittee and receive subcommittee reports, based on a 1972 law causing havoc in the age of electronic records. police would rate a methadone clinic and arrest people there. she strongly recommended we change that so we do not overprescribed and we know about the treatment. we understand samsung is contemplating new rules, and we are committed to these rules reflect concerns that have been repeatedly voiced by some in the medical community who treat patients with substance abuse who want nothing more than to make sure patients dagen double doses to communicate. >> appreciate that question because it is a complex issue and these laws are decades old before we have electronic records, collaborative care models and other things we are considering part of practice. a couple years ago we put together a tough regulatory guidance to help this issue but that was not sufficient so last

year we held a listening session for stakeholders and have taken those pieces of input and are trying to balance the privacy concerns with the need for data. we hopeful we will have something available for public input yet this year to try to address these issues. >> ag for letting the committee know. mr botticelli, i want to follow-up on the kentucky drug court issue. could the drug court's decisions relate to the issue of diversion? at a previous hearing we heard testimony from witnesses about kentucky and western kenya problematic states. when entering the drug court system is impossible to determine it is from an illicit source or prescribed by dr.. could this be part of the shoe? drug courts could really work and have some flexibility to deal with this on a case by case

basis? >> the national association of drugs or professional status survey of drug courts in the united states and for those drug courts that were not referring it was actually more educational bias and fear of diversion that kept people from doing that. the second piece of any treatment leather is the occasion assisted treatment or residential treatment requires a level of collaboration and relationship between the courts and the provider to ensure that courts referring to treatment are referring to high-quality treatment. we need to pay attention to diversion and drug courts in combination with treatment programs can ensure that these are appropriate appropriately prescribed and appropriately monitored medication and they need to make sure they are partnering with physicians who are implementing and dispensing medications in a high-quality way. >> i got an article in some of these courts using vivitrol.

i want to make sure i understand, they want to keep people released from prison drug free and at some point could you clarify, i use a namaste have synthetic opiate said they have federal funding cut or they can still maintain federal funding and vivitrol would be acceptable as another part of the program? >> medications, that should be a decision between the treatment provider and patient. to make sure there were not categorical prohibitions for drug courts to not offer medication assisted therapies and if someone was on recommended course of treatment they don't have to get off of the medication to do that. we don't dictate what medications courts use to do

that. like any treatment you want to have an arsenal of medication. >> could you respond to the vivitrol question too? did you hear that? i am wondering if that is a statement this states and the diversion to using vivitrol, that could be part of what we -- microphone please. >> i think that we are trying to have the full -- available to treating providers to not get between the provider and patient as long as there's the opportunity, the treatments that are available. >> i ask the witness is what one thing you recommend to start reversing the epidemic. as far as dr. frank when he went

out of time i ask unanimous consent, to ask each of the other witnesses to supplement their -- to get back on the recommendation, we recognize there is a problem. and will we do on congress. >> the partnership at the state looking at kentucky and others. i thank the panel. we will follow up with the question because we heard a number of recommendations so we ask for more clarification of this. a single airplane crash, and in the last year from drug overdose deaths, the combination of every airplane crash in north america and 1975 to the present. in keep this on the front page.

this is a serious crisis, education of physicians, or federal funding going the right direction. i thank all the witnesses and members that participate in today's hearing submit questions to the record and asked all the witnesses agreed to respond promptly to the question. with that this committee is adjourned, thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> defense secretary ashton carter will release the pentagon's annual report on sexual assault in the military this afternoon. also expected to announce a directive to further strengthen prevention and response programs. after his introductory remarks, the senior executive advisor dr. nathan goldbrook will discuss the report and respond to questions. you can see that live starting in half an hour 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. cinder/song writer judy collins the about around table discussion on suicide prevention. join as later today when we will show you that program again at 7:20 eastern on c-span2.

at 8:00 eastern a forum looking at global risks. the milliken institute hosted the event touching on topics like iran and isis. republican senator and prospective 2015 presidential candidate lindsey graham was among the speakers. you can see that starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. some developments on the recent rioting in baltimore, the death of another young black men in police custody, nick gas reports baltimore state attorney marilyn mosby reported the death of 25-year-old freddie gray has been ruled a homicide and criminal charges will be filed against six police officers involved in his april 12th slain. officers failed to establish probable cause for great's arrest and further acted in an unlawful manner when transporting grain in a police van. there was also the associated press report, the baltimore police officers' union says six office is charged in the investigation are not responsible for his death.

fraternal order of police lodge president jean ryan commented tragic as the situation is, none of the officers involved are responsible for the death of mr. gray. to the contrary at all times each of the officers diligently balance their obligations to protect mr. gray and discharge their duties to protect the public. also among those commenting on the situation in baltimore, former florida governor in 2016 republican presidential candidate jeb bush, here's what he had to say yesterday. >> important to reflect on the fact the young men died and this is a tragedy for his family and this is not just a statistic, this is a person who died. secondly there were a lot of people who lost their lives as a result of this and we need to be respectful of private property and allowing the riots to kind of happen was disturbing.

you can't just push over that window to the grand societal problems and do things public safety is the first priority for any city and any government jurisdiction on this case. a lot of people will suffer and hopefully order should be restored. it sends the wrong signal out to have a baseball game we need to recognize these tragedies occur, you can't allow that to happen because it might create more of them. i do think the tendency particularly on the left is to blame, to create a sense of reasons why this happened and the president's view on this, he started pretty well by talking about one sentence in his response about the decline of

families in urban core america and that is absolutely true. much broader issues go along with this. the pathologies that are being built of people stuck in poverty. you are more likely to stay for if you are born poor today and we need to deal with this and conservatives have the better approach. his approach is to say conservatives haven't offered up enough money to give me to be able to create programs to let people be successful. at what point do we stop? $10 trillion? $1 trillion a year? at one point you have to conclude the top down driven poverty programs have failed. i think we need to be engaged in this debate as conservatives and say there's a bottom up approach the stars with building capacity so people can achieve earned success at having higher expectations and higher accountability and dramatically different kinds of schools and the kinds of things that will yield a chance for families to

be able to survive in a difficult time. here is the big challenge for people born in poverty today. if you are born poor today, by the time you reach the scene, it is possible you will never have a job in your entire life. that is the world we are moving towards. dramatic to eruptive technologies putting the first round on the latter higher and higher and higher. if we don't get this right we're going to have an america that is radically different than what created its green is. the ability for people to rise up would be challenged in ways we can't even imagine. cell having this conversation in the broader sense is probably not appropriate completely today but i hope conservatives don't feel compelled to hold back. ..

in a business that can't reopen. it's the nursing home. it's the church. these are people, this is the community that you know, creates the vibrancy to allow for these communities to be successful. are always hurt the most. in these kinds of events. so i think the mayor's record, when he was mayor of new york creating strategy with the police department was the right one. >> 150 years ago this weekend a

grieving nation gathered along the route of abraham lincoln's funeral train as it maids it way from washington, d.c., to his final resting place in springfield, illinois. this sunday afternoon at 2:30 on american history tv on c-span3 we're live from oak field cemetery in springfield to commemorate the anniversaries of president lincoln's funeral with over 1,000 reenactors speeches and musical performances and historians and authors on the funeral journey and tour of newly recreated lincoln funeral car. on c-span this weekend, saturday as 10 a.m., grand prize winners in our studentcam documentary competition. the state visit of japanese prime minister shinzo abe including his arrival at the white house and the toast at the dinner in his honor. sunday morning 10:30, the supreme court united states oral arguments on the same-sex

marriage whether 14th amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. booktv this weekend, saturday night at 10:00 on "after words," author peter sheriff vin looks at first lady michelle obama from childhood to the white house. sunday on in depth live three-hour conversation with author and fpl maker, john ronson, he wrote the men who stare at goats psychopath test and journey through the madness industry. jon ronson will take your email comments, and tweets. get the complete schedule at c-span.org. c-span2 providing live coverage of u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend booktv for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction

books and authors. c-span2 created by the tv industry and brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, follow us on facebook and twitter. on thursday a week before the u.k. general election the bbc hosted the final election leaders event featuring british prime minister and conservative party leader david cameron labour party leader ed miliband and liberal democrat leader nick clegg. they answer ad range of questions posed by a studio audience on immigration and membership in the european union. the cbc monitored this 90 minute event from leeds west yorkshire, england. >> tonight, david cameron ed miliband and nick legg face our audience here in leeds town hall. this is questionur time. ♪

[applause] now, thank you very much. over the next 90 minutes the three party leaders will take the stage here and be questioned by our audience of course as ever. an audience tonight is made up of three lots of 25% who intend to votef for each of those three party leaders and the remaining 25% who are either undecided or supporting other parties. now during this program as ever on question time, you can text or tweetio or hashtag. o bbcqt. follow bbc question time. you can textwe comments to 83981. push the red button and see what other people are saying. let's get cracking and hear from the leader of the conservative party, davidom cameron. [applause]

our first question comes from jenny johnson please.jo >> will you what you plan to cut child tax>> credit and restrict child benefits to children? >> well, thank you, jenny, for that question. no, i don't want to do that. this report that was out today is something i rejected at the time as prime minister and ihe reject it again today. but i do think it is important we go on reforming welfare. it is worth remembering when imi became prime minister we had a situation where some families were getting 70, 80, even 90,000 pounds of housing benefit for one house. think how many people00 watching this program were going out working hard, paying taxes to keep that family in that house. a house they could never afford to live in. we've got to go on reforming welfare. make sure work always pays.fo and let's go on doing what we've done for the last five years which is get two million morer people back into work.

that is the most important thingmi we can do, helping people off welfare into work that is the sort of country i want to build the next five years. [applause] >> you said you didn't want to put to bed rumors you were goingid to cut child tax credit. you meant you would put to bed. >> yes. we increased child tax credits, by 452 pounds in thiss, government. i was determined while we had to take difficult decisions and we have, we were left absolute nightmare situatio n to clear up, i wanted to make sure child povertyua continued to fall and it has fallen under this government because of what we did.e >> that is guaranty -- anyone come in on this? you, sir, there in the back. middle there. yep. >> you are quoting 17, 20,000 pounds of benefit. how many families are claiming that amount of money. >> it wasn't a huge number. the fact everyone that was pays for byne dozens people going outin to work and paying tacks.

look if you believe as i do go on reforming welfare making sure works always pays, helping people bac k into work and keeping working people's taxes down, that is my program. if you want unlimited welfare more increases in welfare and higher taxes for working people that is ed miliband's program vote for him. i say keep reforming welfare. thevo right thing to do. >> i'm sorry, but i think you're either deceiving the british publicde or you know you exactly what you are going to do but'r refuse to give specifics. i find that very little difficult to understand.di [applause]y how can i possibly vote for you on that basis? >> let me answer that directly. in the last parliament we saved. 20 billion pounds on welfare, we need to save something like that half that in this parliament. if we don't save the money on welfare and other parties don't seem to d want to do that, then they're going to have to make deep cuts in things like the national health service and i don't want to do that i'm going o to increase spending on national health service every year in the next parliament just as i did in

the lastev parliament. but werl can reduce welfare if for instanceli we get another two million people backce to work that will cut the welfare bills. here is another tough choice i do think we needin to make. we should say to young people in our country the idea you leave school immediately sign on to job-seekers allowance immediately get a flat with housing benefit. i don't thinkll that should be option anymore. we should say to young people, we want you to have a great future.ay you should be earning or learning. we'll make available apprenticeships. make available the university places make available the training places. you can't start your life on benefits. that is notth the way we should work i in britain today. [applause] >> there in the back yes. >> and that is all very well but what about those 18 to 21-year-olds who don't have a support network? so then who don't have a familyn to turn to? isn't that policy for them specifically going to result in

more homeless young people on the streets? >> i think the lady makes a very t important point. ] [applause] anyone who clearly can't stay at home who has to live independently because of abuse or what have you, we have to make specialse provisions for them and weve would. but the situation today, where you can age 18, leave school, sign on get a flat, rather than work or earn and learn at same time, i don't think that is right. but other countries in europe have almost abolished youth unemploymental because they haveme taken this approach say in germany or holland. i think we should do the same thing. we have created two million jobs in the lasted five years.ea youth unemployment has come plummeting down. if we stick to the economic plan that is working we continue to to get unemployment down and down, and give young people what i want, which is opportunity of apprenticeship or universityap place and chance after great career. starting the life on benefits isfr frankly no life at all. >> david cameron, come back to

question the man here asked either you don't know what you're going to do you specified getting people back to work, orpe you do know and you're hiding it. alexander said you asked two years ago for a thing which included massive cuts in child benefit? >> no, these were proposals i produced, i rejected then. i didn't ask for them.ed >> where did they come? >> in government as a member, step back what we inherited. i became prime minister at ahe time there was no money left. i bring this a with me everywhere. the notes that the treasury. minister left. there it is. dear chiefan secretary, i'm afraid there is no money. that is the situation i inherited. so we have had to make difficult decisions overs. these last fivehe years. i accept not everyone of thene decisions has been easy for people but the truth is, five years on, the deficit is halved. two million people are back ink work. the economy is growing faster than any major economy in the

western world. i think what this election ise about, do we build on the foundation and build a really strong country where you can get a job you can keep more of your own money to spend as choose get that apprenticeship, build oust houses for people to buye and own or go back to the start with edy miliband propped up by snp propped up by borrowingl more debt, all the things thatd landed us in that mess in the first place any never warrant us to go back there again. [applause] >> really, there are some people who are worried that you have ae plan to cut child credit and tax credits. are you saying absolutely as ayo guaranty it will never happen? >> first of all child tax credit we increased. >> it will not fall. >> it will not fall. >> benefit. >> child benefit to me is the one of the most important benefits there is, goes directly to the family, normally to the mother. 20 pounds for the firsts fa child.. 14 for the second.fi it is a key part of families

budgets in this country. that is not what we need to change. what we needs to change is again whatge did i inherit? a syste m where if you worked an extra hour or an extra shift you could sometimes find you actually lost money from that extra hour or that extra shift. so universal credit, that we're introducing, coming in now means every hour you work you keep more of the money that you earned. we'll introduce that right across the country. that will save money and formi part of th welfare savings we need tneo make. >> bring a couple more people. that woman. >> that sounds fantastic we have more families rely on food t banks and more people and morey children in poverty than ever before. [applause] >> i think you are ask ask absolutely key question.te i'm not saying everything is perfect. i'm saying we have not finished the work.in that is why i'm so keen to do another five years of continuing toan get the country back to work,

to build a strong economy to pay down our debts and to hand on really good country to your children. i'm not saying we i fixed it. it takes a long time to fix the mess i wast left to clear up. what i would say we're halfway through ae building job. you can keep the team that are building the stronger economy, or you can go back to the team, frankly, that the ones that designed the building that fell down in the first place. i think that would be a terrible mistake. >> you want to come in. come tero you. we'll move on.st >> you talk about sort of country you want to hand on to our children. i doesn't want to hand on ai country in my child where there are food banks where people were hit by punitive benefit sanctions. people have died from theve bedroom tax. we have cases where people have disabled, a woman disabled daughter die and then receive a demand for bedroom tax for the spare room that disabled daughter left behind. that is notdi a country i want to hand onor to my child.

[applause] >> first of all, let me say, i don't want anyone to have to rely on a foot bank in our country. it is important that there are there but i don't want anyone to i have to rely on them. >> they, prime minister, theyy do. >> most important thing we can do is get more people into work.t that is the best route out of poverty. two million more jobs is more than the rest of europe put together. have we finished job. someone said zero contract. oneid in 50 jobs is zero hour contract.is two of three jobs we created are full-time2/ job. if you're saying the job isn't finished i as absolutesly agree. that is why i'm passionate, completing job. whatin country do you want to pass y on to our children? i don't want us to go on borrowing year after yearg racking up debts we ask our children to pay because we didn't have courage to pay them off ourselves. this is the heart of the election campaign. ed miliband will stand here,

saying go on with budget deficite forever. i'm saying once the economyec wants to grow you should put s money aside for rainy dayu otherwise we'll burden children with tooeb much debt. >> what is that. >> debate with i am directly instead of pointing directly fingers at him? [applause] >> we debate we debate house ofns commons 146 times. we debate 146 times in the house of commons. not always that instructive. >> how about a different debate. t >> this is giving you a chance to ask questions directly. i think this is more powerful than a television debate. >> go on to another question similar subject.r, lorna jasser please. >> okay. gain no tax rises promiseyo acknowledgement you're in the habit ofri lying in your pre-election problem is? [applause]

>> this, announcement yesterday that aboutr the law. >> reasonth for making this pledge, i really want to be clear with people.ak over the last five years we made difficulto decisions. we talked about some of that tonight. it hasn't been easy i know for manyfi people in britain but i think been the right thing to do. i now know what is in the books. i know what needs to be done and i know we can finish the job without putting up people's taxes. my fear is this. those people who opposed every step that we've taken, every cut we had tveo make i think they will make a cut of their own which is to put up taxes to reach into your pay packet and to cut your pay. i don't want to do that. so if you want a government that finds more efficiencies in government spending, that goes on reforming welfare and doesn't put up taxes for working people indeed cuts taxes for working people, that is me. if you want a government that goes on with unreformed welfare, that doesn't find savings in government spending and puts up taxes that is the other guy. that is the choice. >> exactly the question is why

don you need a law? >> i want to, i want to put it absolutely beyond doubt. i really want hard-working people in our country who work every hour, who want to have a better future for themselves and their families, i want them to know, we're not going to put up vat or national insurance or income tax. we know we can make remaining savings without having to attack their m wallets. that is the pledge i want to give. >> when alistair darling tried same thing your chancellorhe said, no other chancellor in the long history of the office felt need to pass a law in order to convince people he has the political will to implement his own budget. why do you suddenly need to pass a law? >> because that was at a time -- >> which can be changed. we know. >> that was at time budget deficit was forecast to the biggest deficit in greece. that is what we inherited. making that promise then was meaningless. now having spent five years as prime minister knowing what needs to beis done, let me be clear what still needs to beat done.

we have to save one out of every one hundredt pounds the government spends for each of the next two years. that ist the extent of the efficiencies that are needed. and then we can start to see public spending growing again to make sure, that we go on putting money into your schools and hospitals and all the importantch public services that we need. >> laura you want to come back on this. >> more or less say what you said. >> right okay. the woman there. the don't want to have you repeat things. >> you say that you know what needs to beo done. why are you not announcing wheren the benefit cuts are coming c from? [applause] >> what we're say what we're saying, very precisely we need to make another 30 billion of savings.we that is the one in 100 pounds. so five billion of that should come from the tax evaders and aggressive tax avoiders. we've gone after them every year in government. we'll con intin do that.in we need to go on making saving in government departmentsin through efficiencies and welfare savings thatnc i talked about. that ihas my plan. thatbo gets you to a budget

surplus. means paying down debts. passing on better country to your children. crucially not putting up taxes. i want to cut people's taxes. people talk about the cost of living. the biggest element of cost of living is the tax you pay at end of the month. you should hern 12,500 pounds a yearab before you start paying income tax. would take people on minimum wage working 30 hours a week out of tax all together. we should stop taxing poor people in the country the way wehe do today. that is part of our program for the future.a >> that wasn't my question, mr. cameron. >> all right. let's have another question from jerdia. >> why do youes think voters don't trust your path -- >> another question on trust david cameron. why do voters don't think voters don't trust your party on the nhs. >> whati i think when my disabled son was desperately i will, i went to nhs night after night. i went to different hospitals i went to different places.

i got most fantastic care, and i would say love at nhs for my family and their son. they were always there for me. i want to make sure it is there for other families in our country. i showed youun the note we had no money when we came into government. when we got that note, we made a very big decision, yes we'll have to make cuts in some areas of government spending but the in hs will get more money every year i'm prime minister. and ito has had more money.ne that is why compared to when i became prime minister, 9,000 more doctors. there are 7,000 more nurses. we're carrying out millions more operations every year. do i think it is perfect? y no, i don't. i haves a big ambition for the next five years which is toe deliver a seven-day a week nhs including seven-day opening, 8:00 in the morning 8:00 in the evening for gp surgeries. i know we can do that because we're already delivering it to eight million people in our country. if you elect me as prime minister i willin finish the job to make sure we have seven-day opening for gp surgeries across

ourop country. that would help working people to access the nhs we all want. [applause] >> why spend 3 billion or so on describedhy damaging and distracting reorganizations in nhs by the -- >> changes we made are -- >> yes they're saving money in the nhs because we got rid of 20,000 administrators and bureaucrats in the nhs, that is one of the ways we were able to fund extra doctors and extra costs. i don't want toi harp when i became prime minister growth of bureaucrats were going up, because it has been a recovery job. that is the point. then nhs is stronger dan that i. >> okay, sir on the nhs. >> good evening, mr. cameron. >> good evening. >> the promise of extra 8 billion for the health a services very welcome but surely anybody with half a brain can see that the nhs isn't sustainable in presentt form, pouring more and more money into

it. what are your thoughts aboutat that. >> can't keep pouring and pouringmo money. already put a 1/6 of the gdp into healthpu service. >> i hate to disagree with people. i don't agree with yous sir. >> well, you're wrong. [applause] >> i actually look at our health system and compare it to with others in the world. it comesat out very strongly on its performance and also comes out very strongly on high cost effective it is. as we become a wealthiert country, we should put more money into our nhs so it is always there for us. there is a lot we can do to take pressure off they nhs we have to do better in public health. we have to do better in terms of health education.du there are things about diabetes and smoking and other things where public health issues can really take pressure off the nhs but i'm a profound believer our model is right one.

as long as i'm prime minister, it will be free at point of use available to all based on need and put mon money into it. we haveno taken difficult decisions elsewhere. >> lady behind me here. >> goodel evening mr. cameron. >> good evening. >> i would like to ask is it really so difficult to achieve emergency waiting times if we found anc best way and what areou the actual blockers? just seems every week in the media, we're not hitting thesee far out targets.it what are your plans moving forward? >> i think you make a really good point. the local hospital here does meet the target of seeing 95% of people within four hours. it is important to have thatpl target because we want to know we're getting best out of our n.ti hs the problem we've had recently number of frail elderly in our country and growth of population in our country put a lot of pressure onnt the nhs i think my solution having seven-day opening forpr gps, and making gp surgeries

are easy to access to people. i think that takes pressure off nhs. i think social care works better with nhs we combine budgets and help get elderly hospital out of public locked into beds when they could looked at at home.at that will keep pressure off. it will be always hard work to -- >> do you have an answer to the question why don't people trust the conservatives on nhs. all the polling shows that. >> to me it is my life's work. i believe nhs grows with conservativewh government like i've been leading. we put money in. ipa care passionately. i have seven days left to prove to people nhs, i make this point, you only ultimately have a strong nhs if you have a h strong economy. we've got that strong economy now. don't put that at risk. youif know where they cut the nhs? portugal, terrible economy. cutnh nhs 17%. greece, catastrophic economygr cut nhs 13%. the economies that tank and bombco

where you can't support the health service that our country needs. i think we all deserve. >> let's go d on. [applause] bob wilson. can't bring everybody in obviously. >> yes mr. cameron. would i like to ask you if we remain in the e.u. how will you and how can you control immigration? >> right. very important question, bob. [applause] we can control immigration from outside thets e.u. we do now, closing down bogus colleges. we closed down 800 of them. we do it by having cap onvi migration for economic reasonsat into the country. >> when can you get that done. >> i will do that. inside the e you key changes i will make if you reelect me, anyone coming from e.u. countryfr can't claim unemployment benefit looking for a job. second if they're here after six months, haven't got a job, they have to go home.a third you have to work heree. four years pay into the system before you get tax credits and other benefits out of ther

system. and fourth, if you're living here but your family is back at home, you will no longer be able to send the child benefit home to your family. those four changes are big changes. they will make a real difference to help usma control immigration. if i'm prime minister, that is what you will get. [applause] >> a couple of points. they all have questions on this a couple of points. o first of all we looked at figures of this. under 6% of e.u. nationals living in this country claimin benefits of any kind, under 6%. you're saying stopping that will hugely reduce number.th >> no. let me answer that one. that i-s important. >> the point i'm saying in work benefit, at the moment, someone coming from an e.u. country ist effectively get $8,000 pounds to come work here. i'm not saying they shouldn'tr come to work here. we do have benefit system thaten screws it in favor of people coming to work here. that needs to change. now that needs change in europe. so you need a prime minister

that is prepared to get change in europe. i hope we do. >> i hope we do too. one other thing sorry. how much do you want to get the netmu migration from outside of the e.u. down? do you have a figure in your head? >> combined figure i want to seead net immigration into. eu come down under 100,000.n the reason i set that targetre back in 1990s we werewe members. e.u. we had open and successful economy. before labour got in and opened the doors we had net migration in tens of thousands not hundreds of thousands. i believe that is the right ambition. >> the person there in purple. you, sir. >> you made similar promises in 2010. you lied. immigration rose. how do we believe you now. >> let me answer that directly. i made the promise outside eu wewe got immigration down. inside of e.u., partly because of the rest of e.u. economy not performed and we created moreth jobs than the rest of e.u. put together it has been veryee difficult to meet the target.

i now need to make benefit changes, welfare changes things i just described. i need to negotiate those inne europe. i argue i have a track record. i cut european budget. first prime minister ever to doo it. i vetoed european treaty that was not in our national interests. i kept britain out of the euro. i can deliver these things in europe., i need your mandate sir seven days time to get out there to win a good deal for britain to controlwi immigration to get better position in europe. with me you will get the reverend up d you the british people deciding before the end. of 2017. [applause] >> good evenings, mr. cameron. >> good ening. >> i work in housing. i work with homeless that live in bradford. a lot of those come from easterna european countries who are not able to access those types ofpe benefits we're talking about. what can the community do inom relation to dealing with that? because it just causes problems in relation to crime and

substance abuse? >> i think we need to go back to a system much more where of course youo are free to travel around europe to work in a different european country but you're not free simply to travele around europe in order to claim benefits. freedom of movement was always meant to be about the freedom tohe go take a job it was not freedomd to go claim benefits. those rules need to be tougher. that is not what our benefit system is therer for. >> you sir, there. >> yes. mr. cameron. all of these questions you're being asked have a moral dimension. you keep answering them in terms of economics. i'd like you to engage a little bit more with the moral dimension these questions are asking. . . little bit more with the moral die dimensions that these questions are asking. [ applause ] >> to me helping someone to get a job has a moral dimension. it gives them the dignity and pride that comes with work. helping someone to get an apprenticeship, that has a moral dimension. it gives someone the chance of a

career and success. building a house for the young can afford to buy and own that has a moral dimension. it gives them a stake in the country they want to live in. the plans i have for the next five years is about taking the economic foundation we've built the last five year all the shared sacrifice we've been to but not putting that to waste saying let's now turn that into jobs, into pay into houses into gooschool in a house into good old places and also into that tent at the end of your life that this is a country or if you work hard and save into the right thing, you should get the security of retirement that is the right of everyone in our country. [applause] >> hi, david. if you are in a situation where you have another policy, what policy would you be willing to compromise? [applause] him i will disappoint you

because it got seven days to go to get an overall majority. the reason i think that ray was i think a more accountable government the trouble with coalition you got a great manifesto. you go into some dark room with nick clegg or someone else and start giving away the things in your program. i think i've got a great program about building this house is created new jobs helping people with pensions. and this european referendum which absolutely is a red light. i do want to give any of these things away. for the next seven days and people watching the program we can have that manifesto rather than a darkened room. >> you talk about a darkened room. brady said five years ago we must think about as quickly as possible for the good of the

country. now it is getting close to in a darkened room -- [applause] >> what i'm saying is the last election i believe i did the right thing by forming a coalition and have been a decisive government built what we left. this time we can go one better. have a decisive outcome and anything to be compromised on and we can never really decisive government for u.s.a. citizen. >> winning by a mile is a good hope, they say you don't and if you have to be in a coalition with someone else-- >> when they give one example. the british people do give a good referendum on whether to stay in and reform the european union or leave.

i've been very clear that i will not lead a government that does not deliver that pledge. i couldn't be clearer. i want everyone hold it not pencil in your hand in the voting booth in time to know if you get this chance to have the interactive referendum. if you couldn't govern what the liberal democrats on those grounds -- you've correctly interpreted what i said. i am saying if i hope to win the election in seven days time we are short of an overall majority so i hope to have the country as a majority. if i don't for whatever reason, i've been very clear i would not lead a government that did not contain that pledge. >> how can you be more likely to win the overall majority if you are close to us that the

intelligence they have in terms of what might happen if there was a coalition. >> it is fair in the last seven days to do what you can. including the 28 minutes tuesday by a conservative majority would be good. building those homes and providing this pension. people know with me, if we fall short i would do the right thing in the country. i would still plead with people with seven days to go, particularly when you are faced by the s&p. people want our country to succeed or even access, but that's the alternative and we cannot be very strong and very clear government david cameron.

[cheers and applause] [applause] >> so i maxed leader is from the labor party leader. when she welcomed ed miller band -- would you welcome ed milliband. [applause] >> the first question is from elizabeth moody. >> good evening ed milliband appeared five years ago the upcoming treasury military left a message that there's no money left. how can we trust the labour party with the u.k. economy?

[inaudible] >> let me directly address that. there was a political financial crisis that the deficit hasn't been cleared. it would be the mission of my government to cover that every year. let me tell you how i'm going to do it. first of all we will have fair taxes for the richest in our society, millionaires. i can't justify the 43000-pound tax cut for every millionaire in britain. secondly, protect key areas like health and education but we've got to get the deficit down. the final thing concerns your living standard. the results, lower living standards means lower tax revenue and that is that the deficit hasn't been cleared. a three-part plan to make sure we balance the boat. if you look back, why should we trust labor in what happened before. >> for six years before the

crash, you increase borrowing year on year on year. the data in the dataset both worked for the financial crisis. >> let me address directly. we got it wrong about regulation. the mistake i made was the banks were properly regulated. the question you got to consider for the future is who will get it right for the future. leave that to one side. we've learned that lesson for the future. i'm a first labour leader. spending here is going to fall because i am so determined that we live within our means. [applause] >> just going back to the proud. i run a business at the last

five years have been hard work but we've got a plan now. what is back as the chancellor he called the latter a joke. let me tell you running a business is anything but a joke. if that is the way your party wants to treat the economy, how can we trust it? [cheers and applause] >> now for what your business does. >> i employ 76 people here in the city. >> let me tell you very specifically what we need to do for businesses like yours. this does go into the picture is that the election. some people tell you the way we succeed as a country and what the top to a large corporation empowers the economy. i've got a different view in that it's your choice the next five years. when working people succeed, it brings the team. for your business would make a

different choice for mr. cameron. he wants to cut the larger businesses. i would cut your rates as prime minister. i think it tells a bigger story about how britain succeeds. his succeeds not just with a few successful corporations but with millions of businesses and working people. >> does that satisfy you? >> that is not the question i asked you. i has to buy which i trust. if he lived in the corporate world he would be fired and not be allowed back to do that job. [applause] >> i can tell you to take incredibly seriously for the front page of the manifesto. that is why he's going into the election, telling all of our colleagues in this department you have to make your decision but we are absolutely serious about getting the deficit down. >> mr. milliband can you talk about vague businesses.

they talk about behaving that way as the problems they've made and i think the politicians have got to think about big business. >> if i could come in on that one thing business needs we need to stay within the european union because it will be a disaster for businesses. give david cameron credit. i'm afraid he's being dragged by his party to exit from the e.u. i've got to say to this audience i think that would be a real problem for our country. >> the woman up there in the back. >> hi we talk about non-pay tax. do you think you could ever bridge the gaps between the richest and poorest? >> what is your name? >> surely. >> great question, surely. let me address that.

some of you may know that in some of you may not. you can live here come the work here, be settled here but not pay taxes. 200 years i'm going to get rid of it. i believe in a country where there's one rule for all not one for the rich and powerful in one for everybody else. david cameron will defend the rule. he is wrong about that. we've got to tackle tax avoidance and live up to the responsibility. [applause] >> i hope we reach the man sitting right behind me. >> i've got a simple question. do you accept with labor was last in power? >> no, i don't. i know you may not agree with that. >> even with all the borrowing. >> no, i don't. there have been schools in our country, hospitals rebuilt

centers that were built which would not have been. let me just explain the way i see it. the global financial crisis caused deficit to rise. president obama is isn't dealing with the high deficit because we build more schools and hospitals. he's dealing with the high deficit because there was the global financial crisis. the gentleman care spending has got to fall. >> a new commissary. >> they fall into crisis. some other countries didn't suffer. this country suffered because gordon brown sold gold. how can you stand there and say you'd overspend and end up bankrupting the country.

that is absolutely ludicrous. frankly, you are just whining. [applause] >> i guess i won't commit to you. >> the facts speak for themselves. you stood there and said you didn't overspend. if i get to the end of the week and i can't afford to buy a pie i have overspend. it means i haven't got any money left. for 13 years you were in the 13 year. you spend, sold gold when it was low. if we had gold now we'd be pretty much better off. >> the point is made -- >> when they come back. you said something very important, which is some other countries didn't suffer. that is because they were less exposed to financial services. >> services put millions and millions of pounds into this country.

millions of pounds, which you then spend. >> i think what we didn't do enough of his though the other industries including here. the reality is we do not have enough from apprenticeship and we're not doing enough now. so my point is that if you lead a more diverse industrial base, that is also this election is >> come to you. >> if you can't accept you overspend in the last government, why should we trust you not to do it again? you can even realize that is what you done. why should we trust you? [applause] >> see you and other audience members some parties in the elections saying no cuts at all. i'm not saying that at all.

mr. cameron didn't say earlier to double the cost next year. double to cut. it would be incredibly dangerous. >> yeah, because you want to borrow more. you want people in my age group to be in that you're committed to borrowing more. >> it's not going much further. i tried to set out with the balance plan is. you and others will have to make a judgment about this because i think we can balance the book without sacrificing public services and taxpayers. jenny asked the question earlier. where is jenny who asked the question? it sounded like he answered like he answered a question that he didn't really give you a guarantee. i will give you guarantee tonight. i'm not going to cut your tax credit for child benefits. that would be the wrong thing to do for our country. the wrong thing to do for family finances.

[applause] mr. cameron's answer tonight tax credit and child benefit are the paper of the election because millions of families risk losing thousands of pounds because of what he has. i do disagree with mr. cameron. i've got a different plan. >> let's move onto a different different subject. simon wilkinson. >> why is the labour party misleading the s&p incredibly labor management? [applause] >> let me be plain. willmott ato tdo i have a coalition. let me just say this to you, simon. if it meant we were going to be in government, not doing the coalition, then so be it. i'm not going to sacrifice the future of our country, the unity of our country. i was not given to s&p demand or anything like that. i repeat this point to you.

i'm not going to have a labor government if it means dealing with the coalition of the national scottish party. there is no easy route here. if you want to labor government. >> when did the cap say the real deal and you disagree with that and you wouldn't put forward a speech. you just wouldn't go to the queen and accept. >> we want to put forward the labor queen's speech. you asked me about coalition. i couldn't be clearer with you. >> you have not had a labor government and the labor government supported or the s&p. >> what is the deal in your terms? >> i've been asking about different deals.

>> what is the deal? >> confidence and supply where you sort of have an arrangement. i am not doing that. i want to explain why. >> so you would rather lose and not have a labor government. >> the coalition with the deal with the scottish national party, not going to happen. [applause] >> but the people who haven't spoken already. >> in that case i rule out a future labour government because you're not going to win the most seats in the u.k. [applause] >> first of all i don't want to sound like previous blow mr. cameron. but i am working for the labor government. i'm going to fight as hard as i can and they will be choosing government. i want to make a point about the s&p and the same applied. the reason i object and fighting

us in scotland is obviously nonsense with diehard opponents. the reason i rejected is because they want to break up the country. not only that they used to say the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. that is what they said before the last referendum. now nicholas spurgeon is open to another referendum. >> the problem is you do sound a lot like the other guy. what did he seem to not entertain the possibility might not get a majority which is absolutely ridiculous. you really need to be honest about what you might do in the event you don't. >> what is your name? >> rebecca. >> let me try to do better than the other guy on this one. he was seen at the end david cameron, if you didn't get a majority meant business is going into a darkened room with nick clegg. i don't like the sound of that at all for a whole range of

reasons. [laughter] but i didn't like it for one particular reason. i am not going to stop bartering away my manifesto. even if i don't win a majority i've got a manifesto. some people may have read it. if i am the prime minister, i'm going to do everything i can to get my manifesto. master trading for nick clegg or anyone else's manifesto. it was the first coalition obviously this coalition for a long time but in my view we don't have a majority government. it is not about going into a darkened room to somebody. that isn't what you are voting for. it's not going to happen if i'm prime minister. >> will go to another subject. elisha lines. >> which makes your view more important when it comes to the e.u. and the referendum?

>> it is about leadership alicia. it is what i want to achieve as prime minister. when i look at the country but i think the biggest problems are? five years of wages falling behind those in this rebel happen again. five years ago people have been a worse life than their parents and five years of the crisis. if i'm prime minister incinerate this time i want and all of my energy on those issues, not deciding whether we exit the european union, which will be a disaster for the country. >> your view is more important than mine and everybody else here? [applause] >> i do respect that point of view, but i don't agree with it. i'm putting my view forward. e.g. what the general election. one thing about leadership easy don't always do with polls tell you to do. you do what is the right thing for the country and i've got to

level with you on level with the country that i don't think the right thing for the country to do now is plunge yourself into two years of debating whether to leave the e.u. when i've got to tell you the jobs that depend on it her business and families will be a disaster. one thing i will say which is any further power from britain to the european union is unlikely to happen. in a way you've got to make your own judgment about the most important issue to you. for me it isn't getting out of the e.u. [applause] so you don't want to be arthur random but a second election because you what are a majority government. >> i don't want a second election either. >> you are not going to go to the s&p? >> i want to change the country. i've got to say to the stakes are incredibly high. you get this once every five

years. do on a country go into the rich and most powerful? offer jenny her tax credits are safe. that is the choice of the election. the woman mayor and i will come to you and then move on. >> good evening. the conservative party -- [inaudible] how would you propose to undo the damage? >> the education we may come too. i i want to stick to the subject of the e.u. if you don't mind. >> mr. miller band, i'll ask you a question about the coalition. do you complement -- comprehend how much we respect you in the audience if you are truly honest? [applause] >> i'm absolutely not saying i have the majority. i hope yours to me saying that.

but the lady on the aunt who asked the question about the circumstance of not getting a majority of them trying to outline my approach. my approach is not his dark throwaway for the manifesto. trust in politics which is a fragile thing anyways incredibly low. the idea that nick clegg says i'm breaking my tuition fees promised and david cameron is breaking his promise and they blame each other in the coalition, that is not the circumstance. i'm going to seek to implement all of them. >> it back to the lady. one brief question and answer if you would. >> how would you propose to undo the damage done with the education made by this government? [inaudible] >> what we've said for the future i can't guarantee to reverse what started than done. but we said for the future is we

will protect education spending at least against inflation. the reason we have made the choice which we haven't made is investing in education, investing in the future is essential not just to our society but our economy as well. it forces the economy to cut back on education spending. i'm not going to make a false promise to you. >> yes indeed. we have made that. >> amy green, please. >> mr. milliband the welfare will skyrocket. i am over here. [laughter] >> let me explain why. i've lived in the welfare system with responsibility. responsibility means if you can work, you should work. we are the only party putting

forward a proposal to say if you are a young person unemployed more than a year, we will guarantee you a job working with the private sector but if you don't take the job, you will lose benefits. the responsibilities foundation of the welfare. let me say one other thing important for keeping control of the welfare bill. may not be obvious but it's gone up a lot in the last five years. the reason for that is we have an economy based on low-paid were not building enough homes in our country. that's why we have an eight-ton minimum wage and will build homes again in britain. dealing with the welfare bill is about responsibility, but also tackling underlying factors driving the welfare bill. i low-paid economy that doesn't work for working people. this is all connected because our economy doesn't work for most people works for the rich in my view, the welfare bill is higher and people have a harder life. we will keep it under control.

[inaudible] >> no. >> i think they do. you talk about raising minimum wage and guaranteed jobs. where are those jobs going to come from? >> they come for working with the private sector to create those jobs and a skilled people the private sector needs a proper industrial policies to help the private sector. cutting business rates will help grow the economy and help grow jobs. the big industries of the future commentate climate change for example. some people see that as a burden. it's a necessity to tackle at the chance to meet as a country in one of the most important industries in the future. [applause] >> is that your plan to cut the welfare bill? >> we are going to keep within that. >> the iss says that your commitment to being tough on

welfare is nothing. >> well, i don't agree with them. >> words they gone wrong? >> let me give you an example. look we are going to have a triple basis pension plan going up i 2.5% earnings. the pensions of income above 43,000 pounds a year. i can't justify that in a time where men. what is making a co-op is the key thing on the line. >> i'm trying to go to different people. >> are you essentially telling us you're expecting the private sector to find the gaps in the welfare bill because there is only so much the employers can actually do. you can't -- you are talking about euro contract changes. you are talking about getting people working in the air after

a year. how are employers supposed to afford all of this stuff? being an employer is a very very expensive business. >> we are definitely not expect on the welfare bill. my point is the welfare bill is spending billions and billions of pounds subsidizing low pay in our country and i'm afraid that is a reality. we've got to raise the minimum wage in a way that is cautious in doesn't put people out of work and that is what we'll do. it also got to confront the fact because we want a low-paid euro we spend tens of billions of pounds on welfare as a result of that. it is working with the private sector to raise wages. >> on that point, let me bring in chris mcgee. [inaudible] -- the labour party for business before gimmicks and soundbites.

[applause] >> there is evidence that more will like the contracts and dislike them. what is your business? >> tourism. when the sunshine state is this, when it does and i don't. >> noa shines in york shire. >> than its value but of policy and then you can come back and say how it might affect you. our policy is that of the 12 weeks an employee will have the right to regular contract based on the average number of hours they've gotten. if the employee wants to carry on, they can. but we'll be in the hands of the employee. let me explain why i say that. this may be difficult, so that may explain the reason for that. i don't think we can base the future of our economy on the idea that they meet lots of people that people don't know for one day to the next how many hours they are doing or what age

they are getting. mr. cameron was honest enough the other day saying he couldn't live i'm not. neither could i. i don't expect the british people to live i'm not. [applause] >> ryan starr long please. >> hi, what are you going to do differently about the aggression? >> me tell you what we're going to do. under labour government people won't get benefits for the first two years. we will ensure everybody who comes here should learn english and thirdly, we are going to stop some pain which frankly should have been stopped a long time ago which is employers bringing people into this country, exploiting migrant labor and undercutting wages.

[applause] there have been two prosecutions for failure to pay the minimum wage in the last five years. the notion that reflects what is actually happening is nonsense. even the government so migration advisory committee has said that is one of the things bringing low skilled labor. i emphasize some because most employers can get away with bringing migrant labor and undercutting wages. i don't believe it is prejudice to worry about immigration. some people say it is. i don't believe it is. we are going to with people's concerns with real control. [inaudible] >> -- refused to set a target when she criticizes the conservative policies but isn't willing to commit to any kind of result. anyone who wants to come here can come here regardless of economic suitability or affordability and where is

everyone going to last? [applause] >> what is your name? >> joan, i don't understand in five years time -- >> me finish the point. this is a really important point. david cameron said tigers to go he would get an emigration for tens of thousands. >> i am not going to plug the target out of here. i can't guarantee i'm going to meet. the trust in politics. trust is so low in politics for reasons i understand. i want to be the first politician to under promise and over deliver, not over promised and under deliver. [applause] sometimes i get a hard time from people like joe, but i'm not the

guy who's going to make the easy promises because all it does is makes people think you are all going to break your promises. [inaudible] >> i'm afraid they've come to the end of the 28 minutes. thank you very much. [applause] >> so they'll ask about the three leaders now from the labor democrat parties. would you welcome him -- welcome nick clegg. [applause] mr. clay, the first question comes through darin metcalf.

>> you promised student loans has destroyed your reputation. why would we ever believe anything else you said. [cheers and applause] >> nice easy start. [laughter] firstly, i got it wrong. when you make a mistake in politics as in life, sometimes you can do exactly what you want. i was absolutely between a rock and a hard day's five years ago. secondly i hope you can at least give me credit for the many, many things i put into practice by the taking lots of people out of low-paid. the biggest expansion ever seen. biggest reform of the pension system in a generation. more money into schools to help at the education, more childcare, shared leave him a healthy lunches for kids and the list goes on.

some people for whom the one thing you can forgive, you forget. >> why did you vote for it because it was such a key thing. you had all of your candidates. why didn't you say of when it came to the vote. that is the thing that upset me. >> what happened as the previous government, the labour government increase them. there was no money left. david cameron has been waving around the letter saying there is no money left. the larger parties wanted fees to go up very, very considerably. in fact, the report said there should be no payment at all. in defense but we didn't did is get the fairest deal we could in those circumstances and thankfully now more young people at universities than ever before. my experiences some people will say we can't forget that.

i hope there's funny about their fair-minded folks with many, many good policies. >> user in the middle there. yes unicenter. >> the policy of increasing tuition fees is taking money away from future generations to go to university because the economy will be burst by people not repaying fees and meeting the threshold that the policy itself is completely debunked. [applause] >> i don't agree with that. under the old system if he left university up to start repaying the moment you owned 15,000 pounds. now you have to start paying back -- >> exactly my point. >> some people say it's not generous. you say it is too generous. no one needs to pay up front to thousands of students who have

to pay up front arrested parents to do so and crucially if you can't pay it off during the work during the working life it gets paid off for you. in a sense it is a much much more fair system. not the system i would've liked but a much more fair system and the time is introduced. >> the question was about trust. you in the blue, second row from the back. >> hi mr. clegg. >> prime minister clegg. >> no. >> the public suggest they can't forgive that one thing. >> absolutely. the war and look back on it, the more proud i had that i think was a difficult decision a brave decision for liberal democrats. i am absolutely clear in my mind if you think back to 2010 we could have been greased. the deficit was almost as big as

greece. our banking crisis was worse and i certainly wouldn't have wanted on my conscience higher unemployment higher youth unemployment which i'm absolutely sure would've happened if we hadn't stepped up to the plate to create a stable government without which an economic recovery is not possible. my great concern at the moment is having gotten this far over five years and millions of people having made huge sacrifices to get us this far after the attack in our economy back in 2008. >> we didn't know. >> you discovered a coalition which has been kept secret until today. >> last autumn at the conservative party he said that the end our chair for the sensible way we've adopted over the last five years to balance the books i'm not going to ask

to pay a single extra penny and instead only the working age pourable pick up a tab or the mistakes made by the bank. that is unfair. they want to take the equivalent of 1500 pounds off the 8 million families in this country. they won't tell you how they'll do it. how much you spend it as a and disability. they are not going to touch child benefit. are they going to scrap disability? it's the same. are they going to scrap that? the point he's making quite rightly as we have five weeks of the election campaign. they have a very unfair plan to balance the boat and pass those done in coalition and we are entitled to say what are you going to do? who is going to bear the pain. >> i don't think they want to hear reasons why to not vote for another party. we want to hear a reason why to

vote for your party. [applause] >> that is fair. voters want to know what the choices are. at the moment the fundamental choices are a conservative plan i described which we must to do so fairly in a labor plan which still won't give you any timetable for any detail or in a plan about how to balance the books in the first place. i think one of the most important things, whoever is in government like ed milliband and david cameron, i'm not pretending i will be. i wish it was otherwise. i doubt it's an impending prospect. i think they know they are not going to be prime minister. they are not coming clean that they will make compromises as well. i am saying in the decisions about how we govern ourselves we do cast the vote, and the most important questions is how you finish the job of wiping

this acclaimed star kids and grandkids don't continue to pay the price for a generation staff. but you do so fairly and that is the position for the liberal democrat makes more sense with excessive firing. >> someone has got to be prime minister. >> who are you going to make prime minister? >> if you are in a position to decide. carries the most unsurprising assertion of the evening. either write david cameron or ed milliband will be prime minister. nobody can fully majority. >> everybody will behave in a grown-up, responsible way. >> week or ed milliband saying he wouldn't depend on the national party. david cameron will be prime minister. i'd like to decide which of those two. the real question is who is going to go when alongside.

is it going to be nigel or been in the liberal democrat. my great fear is if you write david cameron for the civilized right wing conservative party that you have ed milliband basically the beck and call you go to the right or left which is not what we need is a country. [applause] >> that is all well and good energy just told us since 2010 you have to make a difficult decision. how do we know you have to make a difficult decision again around things he promised tonight? >> that is why i've been much clearer and crisper i hope about the red lines without which the liberal democrats won't go when two in a coalition government. for instance, you just are trained to save the labor party wants to increase education spending to keep the prices. what he didn't tell you is

there's 460,000 youngsters going into the education system. you need to increase spending to help them as well. conservatives want to do the reverse. they want to keep the pupil numbers but not prices. a multibillion pound cut to the money that goes into nurseries schools and colleges. i cannot be more clear with you. liberal democrats will not go into any government unless either of those parties insist on the cuts to the education system because that really shortchanging the children. >> you mean you want more? you said 400000 people >> you want a big expansion. >> the increase is to keep in pace not on the prices but also the increase. >> do you have any idea what the cost to be? >> another 5 billion pounds.

>> you sir. >> i just wondered if you got plans for a new job after next week when you come in employed. >> charming. no, i don't. david jackson please. >> nick, how do you feel about the huge increase of people driven to use food tanks, many of them in your party following file of benefit sanctions. >> it is very distressing to see an increasing number of people moving to food banks. that is why every day that i've been in government the last five years have had to clear out this unholy mess we've inherited, a broken banking system, the biggest part of our economy in a generation. i have always tried to take decisions were spread the burden as fairly as possible.

for instance, i resisted time and time again much, much deeper cuts to benefit in the most vulnerable and those on hard times as advocated by conservatives in government. when people get back into work, i'll be anxious to make sure they keep the money they are. when i came into government, everybody here would start the moment u.n. 6400 pounds. on the front page of the 2010 liberal democrat manifesto you would have seen a leading commitment that we would raise the point you pay income tax you pay no income tax on the first 600 pounds you earn. that is actually over 3 million people on low pay, paid no income tax. the final thing i'll say which you mentioned is i have become persuaded listening to the trust of others who provided evidence about the people reason are using food banks we need an

exact some of the sanctions that apply to people who don't meet the conditions of their benefits shouldn't be imposed quite as harshly not a mandatory and that is a change i would want to introduce. [applause] >> good evening, nick. i think you're an honorable man, but what you forget is all the sanctions are in place because you put it came in into majority. no work program no benefit sanctions. that is why people don't trust you. people did not vote liberal democrat. [applause] >> what did you expect? what did you want? >> i'm sorry? >> what did she want? >> to come to negotiations with labor, which a lot of votes of

labor protest it. >> is just the little matter of democracy. you do choose. that was your choice. >> that is not actually the case. whether you like it or not the liberal democrats did not win. i did a party of 8% in the house of commons and the conservatives won the most buzz. [inaudible] >> david cameron says you're a great team. >> you keep talking about darkened rooms. they need to go lay down in that darkened room. [applause] the point i want to make to you and everybody is this. you are the boss. we are your servants. do give us through the way you vote our instruction and last

time they were very, very clear. the only way we could create a stable government at the time of that economic firestorm, we could have been the next to greece and portugal and spain. >> our economy was nothing like this. people compare this economy to greece. >> with greatest respect please don't be complacent about the state of the british economy. our banking crisis was considerably worse to considerably worse to increase. our deficit was just as bad. if you want to see what happens where people don't step up to the plate however controversial it is to provide stable government, look at the 50% youth unemployment in many european countries the government hasn't come to grips with the economic crisis. i will never apologize. whatever the short-term political effect have been stepped to the plate in a great

way to put the country before. [applause] >> i don't know whether the color of your pole over his yellow -- >> good evening, mr. clegg. you mentioned democracy. do i assume from now when the phone rings on friday morning, next friday morning that the next person you speak to -- [inaudible] >> policy they get the biggest mandate from you, the party with the most votes, even if they haven't got a slam dunk result has a democracy. to reach out to other parties to assemble a government if you so choose. other parties may not reciprocate and other arrangements might need to be arrived at.

in a democracy there seems to be an old-fashioned principle that the party that has its nose ahead of the other parties even if they haven't been out for a majority of the mandates try and put together a government. >> before we go into another question, does anybody else want to speak about food bank specifically, which is a question we had. let's go on to a question from grace davis. >> the u.k. -- [inaudible] >> free movement in the e.u. has created a problem in the u.k. it did create a problem when free movement became the same as the freedom. i don't think it is the same. so even though i had pro-european. i think it makes sense for nothing he can't need to be part of the world's largest marketplace, even though i am pro-european, i decided deputy

prime minister to break the link so people couldn't survive here from elsewhere and claim benefits, no questions asked. by the way i also point out is a two-way street. there's roughly as many breaks living and working elsewhere in the european union and others europeans working in our country. we've got to remember it is also freedom, which many, many of us british people also benefit from elsewhere in europe. >> were dusan on the on the question of a referendum? we had david cameron sanders no way she would do when a deal which should allow a referendum on europe. >> david cameron and i legislated for the circus dances in which a referendum will take place. >> i am happy with that. i think it is perfectly sensible to say in law if your powers -- at the sovereignty of our nation is in any way shared with the european union at that point

should be your choice whether we carry on in the european union are not. it should be the choice of the parliament of the government of the day. we shouldn't give your powers away behind your back. that is what we legislated for the 2011. they are speeches by william hague and david cameron davis is the right approach. within months the ink was barely dry on the legislation the conservatives now change their mind again and again. i remained at the view that we should have a referendum on whether we should stay and correlate the european union when powers are given up then i will buy the way always argue we were made of the european union. if we quit, we become poorer, unemployment goes up. [applause] >> the logic of what you say in view of what david cameron said earlier in this program is you can't go into coalition because

you will only allow a referendum of powers are given to the european union. he wants to repatriate them have a referendum. >> you should've taken the opportunity to ask about the conservative position. [inaudible] >> they want to renegotiate. [inaudible] >> sometimes they say 2016. sometimes they say they will stay. i don't know what they'll think next tuesday. i think there should be a referendum. i say this as a pro-european whether we stay in or go out for new powers are given up to last. >> the man up there -- [inaudible] anyway, there it go. >> we've got eight countries --

they've got eight countries about to possibly leave the european union and we've got to yours we've got theories on crisis laying underneath. we've got spain. we've got cyprus. they are in danger of leaving. there's a chance they will leave soon. they've got the years on debt crisis underneath the service than 30% government bonds trading a negative interest rate and germany the heart of the e.u. 70% five negative interest rates. i want to know how bad it has to get before you think perhaps now we should leave. [applause] >> i don't think eight countries will leave. >> at the possibility. >> everything's a possibility. i actually don't think it's going to happen. in a globalized world where we had a borderless prints like climate change, human traffickers these massive

corporations that sort of go from one continent to the other. c. one quarter of the planet the next. i think we become stronger when we do things together. i just think we can fight crime, fight climate change, regulate a global corporations. either way, a similar argument to what i so passionately believe in the country the united kingdom i love so much and i don't want to see it pulled apart. i think we are quite simply stronger when we do things together rather than fall apart. >> it still doesn't answer the question of how bad would it have to get. if greece was to leave the european union and france, which looks to possibly -- >> they could vote in the national front. they would allow. how bad does it have to get? >> there are other circumstances in which she would say -- i cannot envision that as well.

what is the world's largest borderless marketplace of 500 million shoppers who buy or manufacturing products services, goods. do you think japanese car manufacturers, big investment banks come to big legal firms big aerospace firms would invest in our country if we were robbing along somewhere in the mid-atlantic unable to sell our own european labor? >> we have heard your point. thank you very much. >> if you believe in to democracy you've mentioned a few times, you give people that same opinion. [applause] >> i've explained the reasons when a referendum will take place. more than that i'm the first deputy prime minister, the first government to put that into law. >> let's go into another question. brenda hammon.

>> with rising tension in russia and the middle east would you support the need is a nuclear deterrent? >> i think we should keep the nuclear deterrent in this unsafe world, but i don't think we need to keep it on the same basis on which it was originally designed to fight moscow at the press of a button. this comes down to basically whether the trident nuclear system has formed nuclear submarine and whether you need a nuclear submarine 24 hours a day 355 days of the whole year going around the world. i think we can step down the nuclear latter while keeping ourselves safe. it is a sensible, balanced way to keep ourselves safe but not spend huge amounts of money on a cold war replacing the nuclear trident system, which doesn't fix the post-cold war world that we live in.

.. the kind of threats we face aren't like the cold war. they're stateless groups extremist groups, terrorist groups. the civil war we're seeing raging in syria and elsewhere. those are the big threats. they're not solved by having four nuclear submarines rather than three. >> you, sir at the back. you've spoken already but have another go. >> you're talking about keeping the country safe. when was this country last time attacked by another country? >> well, we are under threat from people who don't want to attack in the conventional sense but want to attack us maim fellow citizens -- >> it's because we're meddling in their countries. >> well i don't actually think there's any excuse that any rational or reasonable person could give to those people who want to kill innocent british citizens through terrorist acts in our cities. [ applause ] whilst as a good old-fashioned liberal i'm the first person to defend our civil liberties and our freedoms i will -- i think there's no inconsistency between

defending our freedoms and keeping ourselves safe. we don't make ourselves any less free by making ourselves any less safe. >> one last thing if i could ask you this. you've said you want the liberal democrats to be the heart for the conservatives the brains for labour. if neither of those works and you can't form a coalition would you remain leader of the liberal democrats or would you see your job as over? >> look, i want to carry on. i'm 48 years old. i've got bags of energy. i believe in what the liberal democrats stand for which is to strike the right balance between creating a strong economy but doing so fairly. i don't think that's represented on either the right or the left of british politics. but look -- >> i have to stop you there. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> a nice brief answer. thank you. [ applause ] sorry to -- sorry to cut mr. clegg short, but we do have to stop because we have exactly 90 minutes for this program.

that ends, incidentally of course as you would guess, this edition of question time. we're going to be back not next thursday when we have the election results but on friday evening at 9:00 when we'll be looking back at the election and seeing what's happened. the first chance to talk about it. so from here my thanks of course to our party leaders and particularly to all of you who came to take part in this in leeds. good night. [ applause ] ♪ >> reminder that the british elections are on may 7th. singer songwriter, judy collins joined us early this week to take part in a round table discussion on suicide prevention. join us later today when we show you the program. it gets underway at 7:20 eastern here on c-span2.

at 8:00 we'll show awe forum looking at global risks. the milken institute recently hosted this event touching on topics such as iran and isis. south carolina republican senator and prospective 2016 presidential candidate lindsey graham was among the speakers. see that at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. baltimore's mayor says at least five of the six police officers charged in death of freddie gray are in custody according to the associated press. his neck was broken while in custody prompted renewed outrage across the country over police brutality against african-americans. maryland senator ben cardin had this statement in relation to the situation in baltimore. the eyes of the nation have been focused on the baltimore in the wake of death of freddie gray. today's announcement that charges will be filed against six baltimore police officers involved in his death. underscores the case is receiving high attention that it merit, and will be prosecuted with due diligence and transparency.

we all want justice for freddie gray and his family. baltimoreians raised in defense of this young man and we'll watch closely as the case progresses of the president obama also had remarks about the developments in baltimore. here is what he had to say. >> it is absolutely vital that the truth comes out on what happened to mr. freddie gray and it is my practice not to comment on the legal processes involved. that would not be appropriate but i can tell you that justice needs to be served. all the evidence needs to be presented. those individuals who are charged, obviously are also entitled to due process. and, rule of law. and so, i want to make sure that our legal system runs the way it

should. and, the justice department and, our new attorney general is in communications with baltimore officials, to make sure that any assistance we can provide on the investigation is provided. but, what i think the people of baltimore want more than anything else is the truth. that's what people around the country expect. and, to the extent that it is appropriate, this administration will help local officials get to the bottom of exactly what happened. in the meantime i'm gratified that we've seen the constructive thoughtful protests that have been taking place, peaceful, but clear

calls for accountability, that those have been managed over the last couple of days, in a way that is ultimately positive, for baltimore and positive for the country. and i hope that approach to non-violent protests and community engagement continues. and finally as i have said, for the last year, we are going to continue to work with the task force that we put together post-ferguson. i'm actually going to be talking to mayors who are interested in figuring ways to rebuild trust between community police and to focus on some of the issues that were raised by the task force right after this meeting. our efforts to make sure that we're providing greater opportunity for young people in

these communities all those things are going to be continuing top priorities for the administration and we'll probably have some more announcements and news about that and in the days and weeks to come. >> also former florida governor and 2016 republican presidential candidate jeb bush had comments on baltimore. here is what he had to say yesterday. >> i think it's important to reflect on the fact that a young man died and that's a tragedy for his family and this is not just a statistic. this is a person who died. secondly there were a lot of people who lost their livelihoods because of this and i think we need to be respectful of private property and i think the beginning allowing the riots to kind of happen, was disturbing. i mean you can't just push over that thing and go to the grand societal problems. i do think that public safety is the first priority for any city or any government jurisdiction. in this case there were a lot of people that are going to suffer

because of what happened and hopefully order is going to be restored. thirdly, i just, say i think it sends the wrong signal not to have a baseball game with people in it. i just think we need to recognize that, life doesn't just get paralyzed when these tragedies occur. you can't allow that to happen because it actually might create more of them. and so, now when i got that out of the way, i do think that the tendency, particularly on the left is to blame to create, you know, a set of reasons why this happens. and, the president's view on this, i thought he started pretty well by talking about you know, they had one sentence in his response about the decline of families in urban core america. i think that is absolutely true. but there is, much broader issues that go alongwith this. the pathologies that are being built of people that are stuck in poverty, where you're born

poor today and more likely to stay poor and we need to deal with this and i believe conservatives have the better approach. his approach is to say conservatives haven't offered up enough money to give me to be able to create programs to let people be successful. well at what point do we go past, 10 trillion? a trillion a year? at what point does it, does it, you have to conclude that the top-down driven poverty programs have failed. i think we need to be engaged in this debate as conservatives to say, there is a bottom up approach. it starts with building capacity so people can achieve earned success and have higher expectations and higher accountability and dramatically different kinds of schools. and the kinds of things that will yield a chance for for families to survive in really difficult time. here is the big challenge, i think for people born in poverty today. if you're born poor today by the time you reach 18, it's possible you will never have a

job in your entire life. i mean that is the world we're moving towards of dramatic disruptive technologies putting the first rung on the ladder higher and higher and higher. if we don't get this right we'll have an america that is radically different than what created its greatness. and the ability for people to rise up, i think will be challenged in ways that we can't even imagine. so you know, having this conversation in the broader sense, i think is probably not appropriate completely today. but i hope conservatives don't feel compel to pull back. we we don't need to be defensive. it is failed progressive policies think that we need to address. we need to offer compelling alternatives tonight. let me circle back on the rioting specifically. i know you're not going to run for any municipal office but mayor giuliani, said right approach in that situation first person throws a rock and is

arrested. >> i completely agree the broken window policy has been proven successful. it is not you don't have to take it to the extreme having police brutality but there needs to be certainty of punishment to create order and security. who are the people that get hurt by this? it's, it's the shop owner. it is the person who now may lose their job in a business that can't reopen. it's the nursing home. it is the church. these are people, this is the the community that you know, creates the vibrancy, to allow for these communities to be successful are always hurt the most in these kinds of events. i think the mayor's record, when mayor of new york, creating this strategy with the police department, was the right one. >> 150 years ago this weekend agrieving nation gathered along the route of abraham lincoln's funeral train as made its way from washington, d.c. to his final resting place in

springfield, illinois. this sunday afternoon at 2:30 on american history tv on c-span3 we're live from oak ridge cemetery in springfield to commemorate the anniversary of president lincoln's funeral with one over 1000 reenactors, re-creation of the eulogy and musicians and authors and historians and a tour of the newly recreated lincoln car. also on c-span this weekend, saturday 10 a.m. eastern the grand prize winners in our studentcam documentary competition. and at 8:00, the festivities of the state visit of japanese prime minister shinzo abe including his arrival at the white house and the toast at the dinner in his honor. an sunday morning at 10:30 the supreme court of the united states oral arguments on the issue of same-sex marriage on whether the 14th amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. and on c-span two booktv this weekend, saturday night at 10 on

of a words author peter slevin look as life of our first lady michelle obama from childhood to the white house. on sunday noon on "in depth," conversation with documentary filmmaker jon ronos. n he has written many books the men who stare at goats the psychopath test, the tour plus throughed madness industry. join us with the conversation with jon ronson. get the complete schedule at c-span.org. political favoritism was one of the topics deputy homeland security secretary alejandro mayor york cast testified before the homeland security committee. an inspector general's report mayorkas, serving as head of u.s. citizenship immigrations services gave special access through eb-5. it allows foreign nationals if

they invest 500,000 to million dollars in a project or business that creates jobs for u.s. citizens this. is just over two hours. >> committee on homeland security will come to order. the purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the immigrant investor program known as the eb-5 program. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. on march 20 fourth, the department of homeland security inspector general, released a report detailing allegations against deputy secretary mayorkas that relate to his time as director of u.s. cis and his oversight of the eb-5 program. the ig's office conducted more than 50 interviews, reviewed more than 40,000 phone records and obtained more than one million documents and emails. this investigation was unprecedented and that there were more than a dozen whistle-blowers that came forward to the inspector general's office. the findings are troubling as ig made some very serious charges

against mr. mayorkas. chief among them were that he used his position to influence outcomes in select cases for the benefit of politically-connected an powerful individuals. in general, these allegations fall into four categories. special access. there are allegations are unequivocal. mr. mayorkas gave special access and treatment to certain individuals and parties. political favoritism. quote, we received complaints from u.s. cis employees that the application for politically connected regional center, gulf coast funds management received extraordinary treatment as a result of mr. mayorkas's intervention. additionally uscis staff understood these applicants were prominent or politically connected. created or went around

established process and career staff decisions. mr. mayorkas was in contact outside of the normal adjudication process either directly or through senior dhs leadership, with a number of stakeholders having business before the uscis according to the employees but for mr. mayorkas's actions, the staff would have decided these matters differently. misplaced priorities. mr. mayorkas focused on a few applicants and stakeholders was particularly troubling to employees given the massive scope of his responsibilities as director of uscis. two days after the release of the report this committee held a hearing and heard testimony directly from dhs ig john roth. from the report and again in his testimony before us the ig found mr. mayorkas appeared to play favorites with democratic political operatives and inserted himself improperly in

ways that influenced the outcome of cases. these are very serious allegations. and ones if true should not be ignored. although the ig denied alleged that these acts were criminal in nature, they without a doubt raised questions about the deputy secretary's judgment. this was not the first time that the inspector general's office reviewed allegations of impropriety at uscis. in a separate report the ig found in late 2009, the former uscis chief counsel also placed pressure on career staff to reverse outcome for a petition filed by a university that the chief counsel was connected to. therefore in april 2010, and response to that, mr. mayorkas himself put out a policy memo to uscis employees that stated, quote, each uscis employee has the duty to act impartially in the performance of his or her official duties.

any occurrence of actual or perceived preferential treatment, treating similarly situated applicants differently can call into question our ability to implement our nation's immigration laws fairly honestly and properly. in examining the ig's findings it seems mr. mayorkas has repeatedly violated his own policy through his actions regarding certain eb-5 cases at director. and as chairman of this committee, as a former federal prosecutor in the public integrity section of the department of justice i take the oversight responsibilities of this committee under the copstution very seriously. after looking at the ig's report and hearing the ig's testimony last month, i felt obligated to examine the accusations made in this report in greater detail. our committee staff has analyzed

over 500 pages of documents from the ig and dhs. the committee expects to receive additional documentation from the department in the coming days but since our first hearing and after reviewing the report and associated documents i have more questions. for instance did mr. mayorkas knowingly or unknowingly violate uscis policy to grant special access and treatment to applicants who were prominent and politically-connected and overrule uscis career staff decisions in these cases? secondly, does the lack of judgment shown by mr. mayorkas in the ig's report raise doubts about his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of deputy secretary? specifically dhs's morale is ranked lowest of any large federal agency. mr. mayorkas is charged with fixing this morale problem yet the morale of certain uscis staff deteriorated under his watch. third, why is mr. mayorkas not been held accountable for his

actions? according to the 2010 policy that mr. mayorkas signed, quote failure to adhere to the standards or guidance set forth in this memorandum may subject the employee to disciplinary penalties up to and including removal from employment. political appointees at dhs should not be immune from accountability when warranted. we as people's representatives deserve to hear the truth in these cases. however there is no place for presumed guilt before innocence. and mr. mayorkas is allowed the opportunity here today to explain and defend his actions as alleged in the ig report. at the conclusion of our hearing on march the 26th, i stated that i looked forward to giving mr. mayorkas the opportunity to respond today and today is that opportunity, sir. at the heart of this case,

relates the issue of trust and credibility, in order for government to function, our leaders must have the trust of the american people and those who work for them. and we can never forget that public office is a public trust. with that i look forward to hearing from mr. mayorkas, with that i yield or i recognize the ranking member of the committee, mr. thompson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'd like to thank deputy secretary mayorkas for appearing today. last month the department of homeland security's office of inspector general release the results of an investigation into the employee complaints about the management of the investor visa program. this program better known as the eb-5 program accounts for less than 1% of all visas issued by the united states citizenship and immigration services however, give the program's potential as a job creator it

has great visibility to congressional leaders from across the political spectrum. i do not take issue with the inspector general's decision to limit his review to questions regarding deputy secretary mayorkas's involvement in the three eb-5 applications at issue. however, i'm disappointed that after expending months of resources to investigate these cases, that the inspector general produced an incomplete report. it only addressed allegations made by uscis personnel about contact with prominent democratic figures thereby giving the false impression that there were no republican inquiries or outreach on these three cases. at the time that inspector general roth ted, i was skeptical that deputy secretary mayorkas only heard from

democrats on these cases given the potential economic benefit of the eb-5 program. when i asked inspector general about other outreach on these three cases the inspector general was non-responsive. subsequently through further engagement with the department, i have learned that prominent republicans contacted deputy secretary mayorkas and asked him to give his personal attention to these three cases. given that this review has implications for deputy secretary mayorkas's reputation, it was incumbent on the inspector general to present a complete picture of mr. mayorkas's contacts and involvement in these cases. more broadly i have learned that while serving as uscis director deputy secretary mayorkas was regularly contacted on eb-5 cases and other visa matters but not only by

democrats but also republicans including members of this committee. not only am i disappointed about the incompleteness of the inspector general's review, i find it appalling that inspector general would not provide testimony to lay to rest questions of actual wrongdoing or impropriety despite the fact that the report did not find that deputy secretary's involvement was inappropriate. as i stated last month the picture that emerged from the inspector general's report was that of an activist manager that demanded reform and responsiveness from his agency. if we want to have a comprehensive examination of deputy secretary mayorkas's leadership style we should look at his actions as a whole including in his current capacity as deputy secretary. under deputy secretary

mayorkas's leadership the department made great strides in some areas and remains stagnant in others. there have been progress on key areas identified on a government accountability office's high-risk list as a result of these efforts, gao recently acknowledged improvement stating that dhs has demonstrated exemplary commitment and support for addressing the department's management challenges. the deputy secretary is also working closely with the secret service director on reform efforts. there is quite a bit of work to be done to improve the agency's performance and address long-standing cultural issues. equitable treatment of secret service personnel is still an issue. there is also the matter of a racial discrimination class-action lawsuit that has dragged on for 15 years. also we've not seen many of the

recommendations issued by the department's independent panel implemented, including bringing someone from an outside agency into its leadership. these outstanding issues undermine morale and performance within this vital agency and certainly demand timely and thoughtful attention. more broadly dhs has well-documented morale challenges of its own. according to the 2014 best places to work in the federal government, the department comes in last with dismal scores in areas of support for the diversity, fairness and effective leadership. the department has spent millions of dollars on studying the workforce but a plan that yields results has yet to be implemented. i'd like to hear from the deputy secretary mayorkas on how through his leadership, substantial improvements can be achieved at the department. mr. chairman while i understand that much of today's discussion is looking backwards, i hope

that we will seize this opportunity and also look ahead. deputy secretary mayorkas is the highest ranking dhs official to appear before this committee this congress. we should seize this opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about dhs and how it is addressing its operational, administrative and mission challenges. this committee works well when we can work in a bipartisan manner to achieve the shared goals of advancing the department of homeland security. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member, to make it clear. i did not create or generate the inspector general's report. but it is, has been completed and i have a role under the constitution to provide oversight responsibility in this matter. that is what we were doing here today. we have heard mr. mayorkas from the inspector general and now,

today is your opportunity for us to hear your side of the story. and with that i want to thank you for being here. give the nature of case today i would like to swear in the witness. if you would please now stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> let the record reflect that the witness has taken the oath. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> miss watson coleman is recognized. >> i don't understand the necessity of swearing in the undersecretary when we had the inspector general who generated this the reason for our being here in the first place. we never once asked him to be sworn in. i just find that is unusual and unnecessary given this high elected, this high appointed official who has such tremendous credentials on his behalf. i want it stated for record.

i thank you. >> i appreciate the gentlelady's point of order i suppose. when we say the committee and house rules provide for the swearing in of any witness that the chair deem appropriate. i think given the serious allegations generated by the inspector general's report warrant the swearing in of this witness in particular, and i again, giving the witness an opportunity to explain his side of the story. >> thank you mr. chairman. but may i just say, that the reason that we're here is we are relying so heavily, you are relying so heavily on the limited and very myopic findings of inspector general. and his report has caused tremendous consternation here, and i'm sure in the department. yet we didn't feel the need or you didn't feel the need to swear him in. i just want it to be state that for the record. i think this is unusual situation. >> will the gentlelady's point is well-sustain and --

well-taken. but the fact of the matter is. this is the witness today. that is responding to the serious accusations. i think they are very serious. i think when you talk about potential breach of ethics and integrity policy could have impact on our nation's security as it impacts the entry of four nationals into the united states madam that this morning's swearing in is perfectly appropriate. and i, i want to say that it is important for this committee exercise its oversight responsibilities and let the witness know how serious these accusations are by the inspector general. and therefore, i think it is entirely appropriate. not only appropriate it is deemed under the house of representatives rules, in this congress, and this committee's rules to have a swearing in process. unless the gentlelady would prefer this committee not

exercise its oversight responsibilities under the rules of the united states house of representatives, and this committee. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate your consideration of my concerns and i'm most assuredly want us to exercise our responsibilities under the constitution and under the organization of this committee to exercise our oversight rights. i do believe however, i look for fairness and justice an equality as we undertake those important decisions and issues but i thank you for your consideration. always very generous with me. >> the gentlewoman yields, i stated purpose of this hearing is to hear mr. mayorkas's side of the story. think given serious allegations and nature of misconduct, at highest levels of this department involving foreign nationals, that the swearing in of this witness is entirely present rat and it is the responsibility of this committee to do so. as we go forward with our investigations on this committee, into foreign fighters

and homegrown violent extremists those investigations may require the swearing in of witnesses as well. most other committees, madam, actually swear in their witnesses. i don't see any reason why this committee, the homeland security committee, should abdicate it is responsibility and not swear in witnesses to basically just give an oath, to say, tell the truth. >> it is inappropriate for me to get engage in this, discussion with you in this manner so, i shall yield and any further discussions. >> unless the madam would prefer this committee not to swear witnesses. >> just interested in consistency. >> i think telling truth is number one goal for committee should have he have for witnesses that appear before this committee. >> i don't think there is any reason for you to be concerned about miss watson coleman's drawing the distinction between

an assertion that the inspector general made from an incomplete report. and, now we bring the number two person in the department, we swear him in. and that obviously is rule but she was just saying, that in her view, it was inconsistent. it has nothing to do with terrorists or foreign fighters. she only spoke to the procedure of swearing in the witness. and, obviously we can do a lot of other things but i think she is within her right as a member of this committee to voice her concern and her observation. it is not taking issue that you as chairman can't do it. she is just saying it is inconsistent. and i think miss watson coleman as a member of the committee is within her right to do so. >> you know, i most likely will have the inspector general back.

and you know i think this committee actually should exercise its right under the rules to have witnesses being sworn in beforehand. this committee has not done that. i think it should. i think that is a responsibility >> mr. chairman? >> i yield to, mr. perry. >> point of clarification for me and maybe anybody else. is it common practice in hearings, in courts to swear in the prosecutor or swear in the judge? the inspector general is the not person under scrutiny here. the inspector general is the one that offered the report. we're trying to fet to the facts. seems to me it would be inappropriate to swear in, to swear the inspector general in this case juxtapose that with this witness. as a layman, it just doesn't seem like that has been the normal course of events in any other similar circumstances notwithstanding. so i would just want to make that point from my view, from my view. >> i think the gentleman raises

a very good point. and it is, the allegations are there. and the inspector general's report. the witness is here to these allegations. all i'm trying to do by insuring the swearing in of the witnesses is that he is telling the truth in response to the allegations made against him. >> i don't think there is, the witness's best interests not to tell the truth. and i think the point that is being made is, i don't have any doubt that i our witness, if asked a question will answer it. i think you elevate this situation by swearing in. sure the rules provide for it but, we have, at inspector's general own admission a report that was incomplete. and that report is it makes serious allegations but it was an incomb pleat report. and you bring someone before the committee to respond to an

incomplete report. >> this is extraordinary case. we do not swear in witnesses. if ranking member wants to do that in every hearing i would be happy to do so. this presents a very extraordinary case of number two man in the department of homeland security under allegations that very, very serious. we haven't had a case like this quite some time in this committee for our oversight responsibilities. i thought it was appropriate in this case to have him sworn in because of allegations being so serious. we can we can attack the ig's report or deal with it as it is. the fact of the matter is, ig report raised serious accusations about mr. mayorkas's ethical policy and his potential violations there of. because of the extraordinary nature of this hearing and issues at hand, as i stated at beginning, i believe believe swearing the witness in was

entirely appropriate in this case and i don't think the american people would think it was not. i think the american people expect this from our government officials at the highest levels, to be sworn in to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. i actually believe mr. mayorkas himself agrees with that assertion. i believe that he will tell the truth at this hearing today. >> well, let me just for the record indicate that under title 18 it is illegal to lie or make misrepresentations to congress whether you are sworn in or not. so mr. mayorkas is a witness. and, as i said, i've not known witnesses to come before this committee and do anything but tell the truth. and in their opinion. so he is operated for a long

time in a professional capacity. and i'm convinced that he understands it. but i look forward to his sworn testimony. >> and the gentleman is correct, that under the federal law it is a crime to lie to congress. no one knows that better than a public integrity prosecutor in washington myself. but the formality of this practice as done by most other committees and this one has an investigative role i think we have not done it enough. formality that is practice reminds all of us, that both committee members and our distinguished witnesses of the importance of the testimony that is being offered here today. without further discussion the chair now recognizes the deputy secretary, mayorkas, to testify. >> thank you. chairman mccaul, ranking member thompson, distinguished members of the homeland security committee, thank you for providing me with the

opportunity to address you today and to answer questions you might have. i have looked forward to this opportunity. the work of u.s. citizenship and immigrations services or uscis is case work. the agency's primary responsibility is to decide immigration cases according to the law in a way that safeguards our nation's security and integrity of our immigration system. the agency decides millions of cases each year. we are fortunate to have a great workforce at uscis dedicated and hard-working public servants. after i became the director and led a top to bottom review of the agency i learned that the agency did not always provide its workforce with the support and resources it needed to meet its obligations to the american public. among the most significant challenges were gaps and inconsistencies in the critical legal, policified dance that governed adjudicatetores in their review of cases. the consequences were serious. the agency was too often

misapplying the law issuing unsound policies. usci is an a jude can tiff body and i learned of these legal and policy challenges when individual cases were brought to my attention. cases, involving the rich and poor alike business and cut ral interests as well as profound humanitarian concerns came to me from a variety of sources including be agency employees who brought cases to me for resolution media reports, members of congress, other government officials and members of the public. the extent of my involvement depended on nature and complexity of the issues presented and what was necessary to resolve them. i became involved in many cases of all types throughout my tenure because it was ultimately my responsibility as the director to insure cases were decided correctly under the law. congress is only too familiar with the severe consequences to an applicant when a case is

wrongly decided. the legal and policy challenges we face were greatest in the eb-5 program. the most complex program uscis administers. eb-5 cases require complicated business and economic analysis such as whether the required amount of investment capital is at risk, and whether the econometric models used to predict future job creation are reasonable. unlike traditional immigration adjudications that involve an application that is several pages in length, eb-5 cases require different stages of agency review and often involved thousands of pages of legal and business documents. the eb-5 program was underdeveloped when i arrived at uscis in august of 2009. at that time the program only had approximately nine adjudicators. the agency didn't not provide them with economic, corporate law to support them. applicants did not have a file a

form as required in other visa categories but instead would submit a formal letter. the agency's national security and antifraud screening needed to be strengthened. there was no comprehensive b-a policy document but rather a series of memos issued over the years i learned through my review of eb-5 cases had failed to address many critical issues that apply to our everyday work. as a result, we were administering the eb-5 program poorly. that was the view from every quarter. at the very same time the public's interest in, use of the program was growing dramatically. in the challenging economy at that time, when it was difficult to obtain commercial loans domestically, more business developers were turning to the eb-5 program for foreign financing. because eb-5 developments can lead to significant infusion of money and new jobs into a community, the public was interested in the outcome of these cases. the growing importance of the

program in communities suffering high unemployment, combined with usci is's poor administration of the program led to rising complaints which i took seriously. congress appealed to me repeatedly to fix our administration of the program and to fix errors in specific cases. members of congress from both sides directed to uscis more than 1500 eb-5 case inquiries per year, dwarfing the number of communications about any other program uscis administered. as the individual ultimately responsible for uscis's administration of the program i became increasingly resolveed inning eb-5 issues we as agency confronted. issues came to me through cases the very work the agency responsible. i became involved in many eb-5 cases three of which became focus of office of inspector general.

i became involved the very same way i became involved in other cases. at the behest of my own employees, members of congress, government officials and other stakeholders. as to the three cases the office of inspector general found that through my involvement i allowed some agency colleagues develop the perception i was favoring individuals with an interest in these cases. i thought i had taken steps to guard against this very possibility. even an appearance of impropriety is not acceptable to me. yet, as i reflected on this important matter, i understand that these colleagues would not necessarily have known what i did do to adhere to applicable guidelines in these three cases nor would they necessarily have been aware of my involvement in many other cases many of which were responsive to concerns and inquiries of members of congress from both parties. this context would better have guarded against the possibility of such perception. i support and embrace secretary

johnson's protocols developed to more ably insure employees understand the involvement of their supervisors in specific cases. the protocols will benefit future agency directors who become involved and provide guidance in certain cases. i reget the perception that my own involvement created. in three cases at inissue cases that were subject of bipartisan support, i did what i did in the many other cases that were brought to my attention. i did my job, and fulfilled my responsibility. i did not let errors go unchecked. i hipped to make sure that those case were decided correctly nothing more, nothing less. i sought advice of colleagues, including agency counsel. took steps i thought would guard against chance of misperception raised concerns about fraud and national security and followed the facts and applied the law. i became more cases eb-5 and

other types, than i can count. all applicants are entitled to and deserve the fair and correct application of the law. in the cases in which i became involved, whether it was the case of guatemalan orphan seeking to be reunited with her adoptive american phamly, pregnant mother seeking urgent humanitarian parole to escape a forced abortion in china, performing art group lending cultural influences and seeking performing arts visa or the eb-5 petitioner forming a business enterprise, this basic principle was my guide my responsibility to fulfill. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. >> i thank deputy secretary. now recognize myself for five minutes. let me just say first again i did not create this report. had nothing to do with it. it raises serious allegations. and you, i know sir, of all people know that i have a oversight responsibility under

the cons stewing. -- constitution. i wanted to go through some of the issues that have been raised by the report to give you the opportunity to respond to that. and first i know in april 2010, you issued an ethics policy to all of your employees and i'd like the clerk to provide the policy memorandum to the witness. i just want to ask you first, why did you issue this ethics policy and what was the purpose behind it? >> mr. chairman, i issued this ethics policy because the principles articulated in this policy are very important and are applicable to everyone in the agency. you correctly noted that public confidence in the decision making of a government agency is critical, to the public interest. and to our responsibility as government officials. and in the service of that principle, i issued this

important ethics memorandum. >> i think it's a good memorandum. i know you coming from the justice department like myself, you say the purpose is to prevent situations that could be or appear to be preferential treatment. what are the penalties outlined if in this policy if an employee fails to meet the standard set forth? >> mr. chairman, the penalties depend upon the facts of a particular case. the memorandum does spell out that the penalties can cover a wide range of possibilities anywhere from a counseling, to a termination, depending upon what principle is specifically violated and the facts of that violation. >> so disciplinary penalties up and including to removal from employment is what's stated in memo. more than 15 civil servants

career employees came forward in your matter, regarding your actions in the three eb-5 cases. according to the ig, quote their allegations were unequivocal. giving special access and treatment to certain individuals and parties. i would like to ask you about these three cases specifically. first, in the l.a. films case. according to the ig's report, with an hour speaking to ed rendell, former governor and chair of the democratic national committee, you directed us-cis staff to stop processing denials of eb-5 petitions you already signed off on. is that true? >> mr. chairman, i don't remember the chronology of communications in that particular case. i think there is a very important principle at stake though. and this is the following. if a concern with respect to our adherence of the law is raised, it is our obligation to address

that concern and have confidence that the ultimate decision that we are making in a case adheres to the law and the facts in every case. and that is what i did in that case. >> on page 18, that is the exact, what the ig's report says you stopped processing denials you already signed off on. i mean i guess you can't answer that question? i'm just going from the ig's report? >> mr. chairman, i am not questioning the facts that the inspector general lays out at that particular point in the report. what i am sharing with you is that i don't recall the chronology of communications in that case but the principle is vitally important, that when we issue an adjudication in a case, it is our obligation to adjudicate the case in adherence to the law based on fact in that

particular case. >> i respect that according to the report you also directed staff to create one-time review board that resulted in approval of 249 petitions in the opinion of the career staff would have otherwise been denied. do you know if that is true? >> that is not precisely true, if i may. if i can please share -- >> very succinctly. i have very limited time. >> yes mr. chairman. in 2011, amidst many could complaints with respect to our poor administration of the eb-5 case we developed a series of reforms, proposals we would flesh out subsequently. one of those reforms we discussed in the agency, announced publicly and to which the public responded, was the creation of a decision board in eb-5 cases to address complex issues that were unresolved between the agency and the party. >> i appreciate that.

but if i could say the board was only used once, in this specific case. creates that the appearance you may have create ad special process to accommodate special parties which i argue arguably were in violation of your own policy. if i could go to the las vegas hotel case. according to the ig's report, not me, you directed your employees to provide senator reid's staff with weekly briefings s this correct? >> i don't recall doing so. >> that is on page 36 of the ig report. is it standard practice to provide weekly updates to the status of eb-5 applications to outside parties? >> mr. chairman, we prided ourselves in responsiveness to congress and, how frequently our office of legislative affairs responded to the enumerable questions and inquiries and concerns from members of congress i could not speak to. i know that the dialogue between

our agency and, members of congress from both parties was constant and consistent throughout our administration of the eb-5 program. and for reasons that were quite understandable quite frankly. >> well, i mean, in all three of these you have been able to confirm or deny specific allegations set forth in the ig's report. i believe it seems clear that your actions to address senator reid's request to expedite this case provided staff with weekly updates, if true, i understand the ig is making accusation you're denying or say you don't remember, that would in my judgment create a perception of preferential treatment in violation of your own policy, your ethical policy that you set forth, sir. let me move to the last one. my time is limited. the gulf coast case. according to the ig reports not my words following

communications with current virginia governor and former chair of the democratic national committee, terry mcauliffe you subsequently intervened in the decision on the gulf coast appeal, even saying to career staff, that you would rewrite the decision yourself. that set forth in the ig's report. can you respond to that? this is your day to respond to these accusations, sir. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for that opportunity. i was asked by the then secretary's office to look into this eb-5 case because it was the subject of considerable concern not only by stakeholders outside of the government but by members of congress of both parties as well. and it was at that direction that i looked into the case, and learned that there were serious legal issues at play in that

case legal issues serious seriousness of which my own colleagues recognized. >> i was prosecutor in campaign finance reform of chinese government influenced an election. i have to tell you, i'm going to pursue this investigation into the eb-5 applicants and what was behind with respect to some of these foreign nationals. there may be nothing there you by think it warrants further look. in conclusion i would just like to say your 2010 ethics policy again you state in your policy quote, often the appearance of preferential damaging to our agency's reputation as actual preferential treatment. there for an employee should avoid matters cases or applications if his or her participation may cause a reasonable person to question the employee's impartiality. i believe in my judgment, renewing this matter and the responses you have given today not really being able to respond

specifically that your actions in these cases create at least at a minimum the perception of special access and political favoritism. in my judgment i think you also violated your own ethics policy. at end of the day you know you and i are both employees. now you're a political appointee, but political appointees should be held to the same ethical standards, i believe as rank-and-file members at the department. and with that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. deputy secretary mayorkas, inspector general was before us several weeks ago. i asked him questions about the normal process by which he reviewed this eb-5 program. all of us are members of

congress. our constituent ask us all the time to contact this agency on our behalf. do what you can. and, for the most part we do. it is not unusual for a member of congress to contact a federal agency about a constituent's interest in a program. eb-a was a job creator. that is one of the reasons it was put together. but, i'm going specifically to the three eb-5 cases mentioned in the inspector general's report. the gulf coast case, the inspector general talked about contacts from democrats. are you aware of any contact from republicans in this same

case? >> yes, congressman. i am. that eb-5 case was the subject of bipartisan support. and we receive communications from members of congress of both parties. i think if i may, articulate, a very important principle here. that, the individual who brings an issue to our attention does not decide the disposition of that issue. the disposition of the issue is neutral to the messenger but loyal, scrupulously loyal to the law and the facts in the case. >> thank you. now, you know this is only not to impune any of the individuals, but my former governor, haley barbour is known, he headed the republican

national committee. very active person in the community. and somebody who is interested in jobs. i'm told that he contacted your office on behalf of gulf coast is that correct? >> yes congressman. >> well and i just, want people to understand that the perception is that here you have a republican governor, contacting a democratic administration on behalf of a job creator but an ig reports gives you the impression that only democrats contacted the agency. now i understand that can both my senators, wickser and cochran, contacted your office on behalf of this very same project. am i correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> former member of this committee who just left two weeks ago representative pell lose sew contacted your office on behalf of this very same

project, am i correct? >> i believe so. >> the point i'm trying to make we get an inspector general's report that would lead you to believe that only democrats contacted you on behalf of this job creation program. . .

did not include any republican members support for those jesse sullivan? >> as best i can recall. >> he did not answer the question. i am just trying to say again the report was incomplete. gentlemen, ladies, we asked our constituents all the time to support various projects. there has been some question about a deference with the evil that you allegedly created to reveal the case. are you aware of that? >> yes. but that was not created for that case. that was created for all cases. the concept of the decision

board was generated in 2011. i discussed with career employees the application of the decision board to the issue of deference, which was tremendous to turn in the community in the eb five program. i discussed its application with a number of career employees in 2012 and i'm going. >> so it's not limited to that one case. >> decision board or deference board subsequently was a reform withble to the eb five program writ large and it was needed especially with respect to the issue of deference which caused so much consternation in the community with u.s. cif to make a decision investors and b. improves and the agency would

change it interpretation and projects would collapse and jobs have been lost. >> thank you. my last question, mr. mayorkas goes to was that unusual for you to act asked the agency to refer items to counsel for their review and opinion? >> i did that with some frequency dependent on the issue. >> with respect to the eb five cases use.advice to counsel in these cases. >> i did. quite frequently we would discuss legal issues and other issues involved in these cases. >> thank you it ideal that. >> way now recognize the gentleman from new york

mr. katko. >> thank you for today. again, to reiterate the comments, we didn't like the report. i will ask you a series of questions. keep the answers that brief as possible. but appreciated matthaeus for explanation. with the regional center issue did you in fact speak to governor rendell about the issue? >> i believe i did in a conference call to the best of my recollection. >> to the rest of your recollection do you recall what was said? >> i apologize. >> do you recall to the best of your recollection? >> i do not. i believe i spoke to him about it eb-5 case. i'm not certain, congressman. >> the difference review board that was part of the issue, did that in fact exist after this

after they always build regional center issue? >> i've learned from the report that it was not convened since the l.a. films case. my hope is number one the agency was not issuing incorrect positions. >> sorry to cut you off. your answer was not. >> it appears that it was not. >> i left sometime after coming so i did not keep track of the conduct of the deference review board, especially because of the changes i made in our administration of the program, for new leadership by brock and the processes put in place. >> thank you. with respect to the deference review board, was it ever easy for l.a. films regional center?

>> to the best of my recollection, we discussed using it in 2012 with respect to another eb-5 case and decided a project could be used to resolve the same issue in that case and that was the case in which -- >> sorry to cut you off again. it requires a yes or no answer. >> to the best of my knowledge, no. >> was that you sense? >> to the best of my knowledge, no. >> with respect to the las vegas regional center issue, do you recall specifically begin with senator reid about this? >> i do. >> and with respect -- dear members eking with steve olson executive chair of select u.s.a.? >> i do not remember speaking with him. that doesn't mean i did or did not. i just don't recall. >> with respect to the gulf

coast case, do you recall having contact with mccaul? >> i do. >> how many contacts? >> to the best of my recollection, less than a handful. now as i sit here i remember a meeting i attended at which mr. mccaul was present in the department of homeland security headquarters at the direction of defense secretary's office and i remember him calling to complain over the ensuing years i believe a few times. >> the general discussions were about the gold coast and trying to get that approved. is that correct? >> they were complaining about our adjudication. >> thank you. you mentioned during your

opening statement testimony involved you got involved in cases were decided correctly. do you recall that? >> absolutely. >> what is in place to handle cases that your agency? >> there were. there were times when cases are brought to my attention by an employees to resolve complex policy issues. i was with respect to the eb five cases and many other cases outside of the program. >> with reese decked to the eb-5 cases, tell me yes or no what was established in the eb-5 cases? did they contemplate interjection by the head of the agency? >> i believe the contemplative supervisorial review. when the review is warranted, supervisors engaged and i viewed myself as the ultimate

supervisor responsible for the agencies fair and correct administration of the law. >> in your mind it was appropriate to interject yourself in the process as you saw fit? >> it is my responsibility to adhere to the law and not warranted my involvement any case then i became enrolled. i was very hands-on leader and i believe in the benefit of the agency and all of its workforce. >> it is hard to do and i have to do this once in a while as a prosecutor. take a step back and look at it from a layman's days. you have instances in which individuals are trying to influence the eb-5 process for their own benefit. you are taking input and interjecting yourself into those cases. and trying to affect the outcome

to the benefit of the individuals who ask for your support. it is fair to say that may give you a perception as something less than impartiality. is that fair to say? >> if i may i would not care or is it that way. i would interject myself to drive to a decision that would than to fit those individuals and that is not true. what i did do was get involved in cases to ensure we were adhering to the law whether that lead to denial of the case for the approval of the case. >> it is fair to say if the allegations are true you've interjected yourself in these cases to influence the outcome. i point to physically to the allegation you wanted the case filed in the mccaul instance because he wanted to read the decision yourself. is that fair to say?

>> now respectfully that is not accurate. i interjected myself, to use your terminology in many, many cases in the agency. >> i'm not talking about other cases. >> i understand. i sat around the table and discuss legal issues involved that our own agency designated as complex, that her own agency referred to his own appellate review office because of the complexity of the issues. when we resolved a particular issue i offered to write the legal analysis just as i had offered to attend in person a settlement conference in a particular case because i thought i could add value to the position of the case just as i

offered and the chairman will appreciate this. just as i offered to try a case that involves national security interests because our regency felt we were compelled to grant citizenship to an individual who i believe did not deserve citizenship and posed a danger to our community and i offered to try the case myself for the benefit of the agent he come up for the benefit of the interest that our regency was the guardian of. >> at the chairman will indulge me for a moment. thank you. i guess i'm getting to the point of perception that people are calling a very strong interest in seeing a commodity a certain way. certain actions were taken by you and looking back, wouldn't it be fair to say you said yourself you regret the perceptions caused by your

actions. is it fair to say that perception is part of the problem and flies in the face of your ethical guidelines and the perception is almost as bad as doing something wrong. looking back, wouldn't you say at a minimum it was not a good idea to have such access and just have the facts? >> if i can if i could also have your indulgence, this is a very important point and it speaks to the value and importance of the inspector general report which i have tremendous respect for her. i took actions in this case is to guard against the perception issue. i was aware of it. i consulted with counsel and colleagues. i've got a great deal about this issue because as the chairman

noted, the ethics and integrity memorandum i issued is extremely important in the principles articulated. her extremely important in principles to which i've adhered throughout my 18 years of government service, 12 as a federal prosecutor and four as the director of u.s. citizenship and immigration services and approaching a deputy secretary of homeland security. i have thought a great deal about the reporter. i've got a great deal about the allegations and i have reviewed the report in the allegations with great care and reflected upon them and my activities and concerns expressed by my colleagues. i do regret the perceptions that my activities created and i take responsibility for those perceptions and i thought about what else could i have done to better guard against those perceptions and that is one

reason why i value so much the report the inspector general prepared an important and critically by endorsing embrace the protocols secretary johnson directed in the office of the general counsel for the department of homeland security have promulgated. those quota calls would have better equipped me to guard against the perception of some employees who did not necessarily have complete context with respect to my involvement in these three cases, nor my involvement. i appreciate the opportunity to address your important question. >> gentleman's time is expired. the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a lot of questions, so i would like to have a lot of speedy advancers. he started in 2009 in this or a

program over the eb-5 program, right? >> yes 2009. >> wendy j-juliett? >> i left in december 2013. >> whether these three cases in particular the subject of consideration and supposedly your involvement? >> 2011 on. i apologize i can't provide a more discrete timeframe. >> do you know when the inspector general started his investigation? >> i don't. i believe it was in 2012 or 2013. >> so asking why you're gone? >> i learned of the investigation in july 2013. >> during his investigation, how many times did they interview

you? >> goes into good ones. >> did he raise the issue preferential treatment and preferential access was alleged in decisions based upon the access on your part was alleged with regard to these cases? >> the subject was raised in the interview in the inspector general himself did not interview me but investigators did. >> did the investigators tell you the individuals you supposedly get access? >> i believe the allegation was i gave access to individuals with interest in the outcome. >> but did they give them to you? my question is this. the inspector general reported to us that there was access by people who are of one political persuasion. the information we have been briefed on can instantly if

there is bipartisan interest in each of these is and does. i want to know what time did you ever inform the inspector general that in addition to the people he was concerned about that there were other nonpartisan or partisan individuals from either side of the aisle with consistent interest in the outcome of the cases. >> i believe i inform the inspector general's office with bipartisan support. i don't believe they identified particular individuals and i did articulate the overarching and critical principle that our obligation is to decide a case not by who is interested in it, but by the law and the facts. >> thank you had one of the things i heard you say or that i

read was perhaps individuals who made these allegations who were well lowered in the hierarchy did not know what was going on because he released these issues that count of 10 members above you in the hierarchy. and so, they didn't know that you were in fact checking with legal counsel and others as you were proceeding to work your way through these particular issues as you might on other issues, too. is that correct? >> their individuals with whom i worked at all levels of the agency with whom i interact it about these cases. i've thought a lot about this but perhaps i could've done a better job providing full context with those of whom i worked and i would have better guarded against the perception. >> are those the ones that are

below you in the organizational chart? you would be communicating down to them on behalf of these cases or in the interest of resolving these issues? >> has individuals reported to me directly or through chains. >> you did have interaction with people you were seeking counsel from the council level or your bubble or both. >> with respect to my involvement i was very open with my colleagues. >> on the three cases that have been a part of this discussion and the only discussion we've had, two of them had an outcome which was not favorable to the individual seeking the application. is that right? >> i know that in the green tack case, after my involvement included once the complex legal

issues were addressed i withdrew involvement of the case. my involvement was no longer warranted. i know complaints regarding the case continued for quite some time. in the fls case my involvement was very discreet with respect to whether we were applying our extranet criteria correctly and i concurred in that case that the career employee led the eb-5 program that that time in with l.a. films i was not involved in the decision of what has been turned the deference board. i was not involved in his decision-making. >> so in your opinion why are these three issues, these

allegations raised by these employees that were beneath you? was there something going on in your agency? >> well, i will say this and then i would like to answer your question directly. >> i would just like to say we are about a minute overtime. >> excuse me with all due respect mr. chairman we just had in 11 and a half minute interaction between my esteemed colleague mr. katko. >> i gave the witness a very long opportunity for a very long time to respond to his benefit. to the other members here i have to keep a little more discipline. but go ahead. your last question. >> i will combat for a second time because there's only two of us here.

i just asked for consistency. >> i'm not going to allow 10 minutes for every member. >> the last one the response from the witness was a little bit on the long side and i allowed that to go forward. but as chairman of this committee he your last question. >> mr. chairman, i think what the gentlelady is asking or is a balance. at no point did you get time called on him. the gentlelady was only a minute over. >> will have a ballot that will be more disciplined moving forward in this hearing will not be done by time those occur. having said that, please ask your last question. >> i believe that mr. mayorkas was in the process of answering a question mr. chairman.

>> if i may, i will answer very briefly by saying this. it is my responsibility to ensure that my employees understand my actions as a leader at the agency. it is my responsibility to ensure they understand entirely and completely the reasons for my involvement in the consequences of my involvement. at this time i was making extraordinary changes in the eb-5 program in our administration. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman i don't know if we are planning to come back after. i have a series of questions. i tell you i also have a series of questions i would like to bring before the inspector general as to why we were only given a little bit of information regarding these three issues in particular and why it was all associated with

that sort of party thing. i don't know what your plans are, but i don't think we are done here. i think mr. mayorkas. i wanted to talk about the improvements you've made to the management of this office and apartment in general and how we should be applauding not instead of destroying you. maybe next time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me say i invariably need quicktime as a chairman. i'm keeping this within some bond of reason. i let members over five minutes within bounds of reason on both sides of the aisle. i recognize mr. walker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i may take a point of privilege, the chairman did not interrupt the number, but was directly to mr. mayorkas. the adjudication policy included a section with eb-5 stakeholders

at the section of the policy space-bar oral communication to take place between uscis staff and stakeholders regarding specific eb-5 cases the conversation must be reported for detailed minutes of the session must be included in the recording of perceiving. the eb-5 program maintains an account for external stakeholders to use when seeking general eb-5 information program inquiring about the status of pending cases or requesting a pending eb-5 case. the policy continues with this. uscis personnel direct all case specific and general eb-5 communications with external stakeholders to this e-mail account or through other established communication such as the national customer service center or the uscis office of public engagement.

during your tenure as director would she be considered uscis personnel and assess the cause of the policy be applicable to you. yes or no? >> yes i was a uscis personnel. those guidelines would apply to me. however, they should not be at the detriment of ensuring we get to the right results in a case. so i would become involved in the case if my involvement was warranted to adhere to the law congress passed. >> are you saying you made the decision whether you should abide by the day? is that my understanding? >> insane something different. i apologize if i was unclear. i was a consultative leader so when i engaged in a particular case, sometimes at the behest of my employees, sometimes because

it does third inquiry was raised by a member of congress sometimes the stakeholder i did not so do so in the dark of night it opened in collaboration with my colleagues to ensure we were resolving legal and policy issues correctly in bringing force to the laws that congress passed in the eb-5 program. >> u.s. would contact the e-mail, telephone and in person was stakeholders including but not limited to add rendell tom rosenfield, anthony rodham. for the cases were discussed, is that correct? >> yes. >> been a communications occurred through your uscis e-mail and not the established eb-5 e-mail, other established communication channels. is that correct? >> they were with me through e-mail on vacation and i would share the e-mails with my

colleagues for the recordkeeping to which you refer. >> how would you share this with your colleagues? when my involvement was needed to address the issues with which the agency was grappling, i would forward e-mails to counsel. >> mr. mayorkas, would you say that within my eb-5 policy? >> i would have to vote but it was in line with the ultimate obligation to adhere to the law. i became involved when my involvement was necessary come with the complexity of the policy issues warranted it, when my involvement was not necessary i did not engage. if one takes a look at the chronology of the case is one will see i was involved in the issues warranted and when the issues were resolved i withdrew. >> a couple more i want to squeeze in. there seems to be a pattern of

overriding the policy when you feel the overall law was more important. your telephone calls and in-person meetings were not recorded or taken and submitted to the record of perceiving. true or false. >> i couldn't speak to that. if i may, i communicated with my colleagues. houses were recorded i'm not certain. >> before you move on at this point i've counted about 14 or 15 times where you said i believe so but i'm not certain to the best of my recollection. let me go back for you. did you follow in line with me? do you need to rebate the policy or your interpretation you felt a larger scope to go by then the policy itself? >> i thought -- >> after he responds i would go

back. >> i thought each and every day to have higher the kind of public servant. the protocols secretary johnson directed at the office general counsel promulgated will bring improvements to the issue about which you acquired. >> thank you mr. trent orr. i yield back. >> i think the number. the chair recognizes kathleen rice from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mayorkas, us-made reference to your testimony in your written statement that you support and embrace secretary johnson's protocols developed to more employees understanding the supervisors in specific cases. forgive me if i miss this, but did you tell us what the protocol changes were? >> no, i haven't.

i believe they were issued formally this past monday. the office of general counsel southworth protocols that speak to a clearance process before certain leaders become involved in particular cases. they defined generally circumstances in which the involvement is warranted or optimal. they speak to congressman walker's issue and questioning. they speak to the recording of the involvement so there is clarity and understanding by all employees with respect to the reasons for and the fact that the involvement and it clearly would've benefited from those protocols. >> what about whether or not in order to address mr. katko questioning for the line of perception you are not there anymore are in charge of uscis.

>> under the protocol i believe so. it speaks to that. those communication should be recorded. in my recording i needs memorializing. not necessarily audibly recorded. >> very often perception becomes reality and perception is an issue we all have to deal with. you have gone through and then questioned very much about the action suits and the perceptions that they gave other people, whether accurate or not. the more relevant question would have to ask on this committee and we would do this in a closed session, the song cause that all of us made to various federal agencies inquiring about specific issues, is that in negative perception and should we not do that? or can we figure out a way to

serve constituents because that is what phone calls to and a nonpartisan way because republicans and democrats both do it and do it in a way that perception is not misconstrued and there is a trans. c. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you your >> the chair recognizes mr. perry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mayorkas good morning. americans provide themselves for any person from any background has an equal chance of success were a failure is lined to privilege or association and the successes taste upon merit as it relates to a set of objective criteria established for the purpose of ensuring fairness while denying individuals the latitude to use their position to unethically benefit for themselves or those who would wish they wish to carry favor.

based on that premise, under what circus dances you consider preferential treatment by a government official acceptable? >> congressman if i may the principle of the u.s. baths -- >> that is mine. under what circumstances preferential treatment acceptable? >> i embrace your articulation. >> so there weren't any. >> preferential treatment acceptable. >> with the understanding you weren't to revise the process in the former united states attorney, is it accurate to state you are aware the adjudicated process is governed by statute regulation and uscis policy. that is a yes. is it accurate you established uscis policy for handling increase in the program?

>> i do not believe i did. >> you are saying the office of oig is wrong. it's okay if you're saying that. >> no, i'm not. this is very important. the opposite inspector general is one i have profound respect for. the office of inspector general found employees had a perception that i granted preferential treatment to individuals with an interest in these cases. i'm responsible for the perception of my employees had of the work i do and i bear that responsibility and i regret the perceptions my were created. >> you disagree you violated the policy. that is fine. do you consider the eb-5 valuable? what is the cost within the

parameters of the program. >> when you're asking what is the feed? $500,002,000,000. >> to obtain a visa. we are talking a million dollars unless the investment is in an area of high unemployment. >> i don't know about anybody else. i don't mean to rush, but as of july 15, 2011 did you have a previously existing relationship with former dnc governor -- july 15 2011. >> not to my recollection. >> the answer is no. >> is it true that adjudicated us would deny eb-5 applications for a firm known as playbills? >> ugly for my reading of the inspector general's report report that is the case. is it also true on july 15 2

days later getting a phone call from someone you did not know probably probably knew of him he received a call from pennsylvania governor ed rendell and within an hour you directed your staff to reopen a denied application. true or false. >> if i may i want to clarify something in your question congressman. governor rendell reached out to me about a eb-5 case earlier. i believe that was in response to the chairman query perhaps another member of this committee. i don't remember the chronology. >> you just told me he didn't have a previous relationship with the governor. now you told me he reached out previously. that's a little cloudy for me. you are telling us it is a coincidence that former chairman ed rendell was a paid consultant representing l.a. films and they just happen to call you two days

after it was known the l.a. films eb-5 requests would be denied and within hours of receiving the governor's call, you mr. mayorkas directed your staff to reopen the denied application for l.a. films. is that a coincidence? >> i take issue with your characterization. >> you are an attorney. it doesn't seem like you came prepared. one final question. what is the dhs policy for use of personal e-mails in the context on april 7 2015 this year i sent a letter requesting a copy of your e-mail usage policy. why is it taking so long? what is the policy for the personal use? >> to the best of my knowledge, official business can be conduct their unofficial government e-mail and i will follow-up with your question, congressman with

respect to your request for a copy of our e-mail usage policy. >> thank you. mr. chairman i yelled back. >> chair recognizes mr. loudermilk from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mayorkas, thank you for being here today. as the subcommittee on another another -- i guess being in the committee room and oversight because the selective memory with some people. i am understanding the process a little bit more of asking multiple questions over and over. i appreciate you being here and willing to share with us what you recall. first i want to ask you about the deference review board. when you establish that, did they are to have -- when they first met, whether policy procedures in place when they

convened their first meeting? >> congressman the board was first considered and formulated in concept about two years earlier in 2011. it was discussed when first published as a proposal and evolved since then. the board convened in the l.a. films case and i am not aware but procedures they did not have in place at that time. >> according to the ig report, it indicates they had no policies or procedures in place. how many times did the drv convened? >> my understanding from report, congressman is that it can mean once. >> on the regarding the l.a. films case? >> that is correct. my hope is twofold. one that with the issue in a

big governing eb-5 policy memorandum approximately two months after the board convened to give better guidance to adjudicators. we were no longer making decisions that we deem to be incorrect and had to reverse at the great expense and consternation of stakeholders as well as members of congress and that we weren't hearing tori deference policy with greater orthodoxy and had previously been the case because the concern was we were failing to honor iran's substantive eb-5 policies. >> said the drv was formulated as an appeals court for someone who was denied. it was used once and ban it because now you have a policy and add way that a ipo could be

done. >> i was fed the decision board was contemplated as an issue resolution board when a eb-5 case reached a certain point. >> so once the drv was disbanded what was the process when someone was denied their application? what was the appeal process there? >> i don't know that the drv was ever disbanded or not utilized. but if an issue was not resolved yet, but uscis adjudicators could for example impose inquiries to the party in interest. they could request evidence that there could be a line of communication of written questions and written response come the usually fact-based trying to obtain evidence that

addressed one of the elements of the particular visa category at issue and the decision board was contemplated in 2011 to bring greater efficiency to that process so that the party in interest could convened with the appropriate uscis representatives to seek to resolve the legal or policy or factual issues that had not yet been resolved. >> based on what utah may in the drv that one time. they heard an appeal and overturned it. he was disbanded. how many denials since then have been appealed and approved? >> how many denials of eb-5 cases? >> eb-5 cases. my concern with the program and it looks like staff has done a

pretty good job with this. my concern is this is an avenue that could be abused for someone who has money to buy citizenship in the united states. >> congressman, if i can, two things. one, the program contemplates not only the investment of capital but importantly the capital that leads to the creation of a certain number of jobs for u.s. workers. number two but i think you might be hinting that which is a subject that mr. chairman reference is a concern of an avenue for people to come in the united states and the importance of ensuring our national security interest are well protected in this program and i actually made significant reforms in her administration at the eb-5 program to bring the national security better.

i brought international security directorate to get involved in and engaged with the eb-5 cases. i should say also that it was i who created the fraud detection and national security direct rip to bring greater fraud detection and national security record to all of our adjudications across the agency. >> mr. chairman, one more question. regarding gulf coast mr. mccaul contacted you beginning in 2008 and from questions we've continued on until 2011 i assume although mr. mccaul has several roles during that time period, ceo of green tech automotive also chairman of hillary clinton's presidential campaign and chair of the dnc and various times. i assume the contact he made was

regarding ceo of green tech automotive. now, during that time. one we read the ig report gold coast was denied to the investment for green tech for three different reasons. all of them when you read those reasons was to prevent against someone been able to buy citizenship in the united states. one was investment funds would not be at risk. the investor did not have a managerial role and the proposal did not have a continuous region. but with several e-mails and phone calls, it seems you decided to engage and according to the ig's report you are willing to regret the decision. >> if i may, first a point of clarification. the timeframe is not 2082 mac

2011. i became director of the agency in august 2009. i think it was well subsequent to that. these very legal issues involved in the green tech caves. iron agency certified for internal administrative appellate review because of their complexity and my involvement was to ensure that we were resolving those issues in adherence to the laws that congress passed in the regulations we have an agency promulgated in the service of those laws. >> is not what the drv had done had he stayed in place? >> i don't recall the timing but we did not launch to the best of my recollection congressman at the time these

legal issues raised to my attention. we were not ready for the decision review board at that time. whether we had published the concept of it by that time i don't recall. i will say that the resolution of those three issues was reached in adherence to the law. the issue of the risk in the correct reading in the matter of his dna was decided correctly. >> you are inferring the staff did not correct. once your engagement. once you engage mccain and there is direct interpretation of the law. >> i think that our collaborative review of these issues led to the correct result in these cases because i did not decide them alone. >> of the lobbies to be clarified? it must be pretty subject is.

>> i think at that time the agency as a reference in my opinion statement, the agency did not have adequate guidance to its adjudicators and we fix that. two months after the deference review board met for approximately two months after we promulgated for the first time a comprehensive policy memorandum that better guided adjudicators in the administration of the program. >> thank you sir. >> the chair now recognizes ms. sheila jackson lee. >> mr. deputy secretary, thank you very much. i had to step away. we were marking at the u.s.a. freedom mac an opportunity to protect the civil liberties and privacy rights of americans while they protect domestic security, another aspect of responsibility that i know you

take very dear as the deputy secretary for homeland security. i missed the discussion on the swearing-in or not swearing in. i draw support from my colleagues who raised the point and i support them but also you willingly were sworn in i think it is appropriate if the answer of the report is sworn in the presenter should be as well with no in any way denigrating of the inspector general. i thank you for your presence and i want to quickly go through some points. first technology came to the deputy secretary's responsibility to improve infrastructure aspects of one of the largest departments of the government department of homeland security. many on this committee where they are when the department and committee ultimately was founded after the select committee on homeland security. we are well aware of the monumental responsibility for

security and many other very important duty is the agency has including the oversight of the border security and this is a matter that we should put to rest or you can get back to the office and adheres to the securing of the nation. you can listen and the understanding found no wrongdoing, no unlawful act and found no unlawful act for an unlawful purpose. my understanding there is nothing attributed that he did unlawfully. is that accurate? >> i believe violated any laws. i believe the inspector general found i did not adhere. >> i will let you answer that in a moment.

is that tr understanding the inspector general found he did not do anything unlawful? >> that is my understanding. >> that is my understanding, so i will not ask you to do years else in. i will indicate that is my understanding of the beginning parts of the report. there were three unusual acts, but none were determined to be unlawful. we would get to the unusual acts. you answer the question as i was listening to the inquiry made on my colleagues that they are adjudicators and decision-makers on the eb-5 and a new ultimately signed off on their work that is done. are we clear on that? >> congresswomen i don't need to articulate if i did not do so clearly. the ultimate responsibility for

the correctness and our administration of the laws. >> so they do the work and you are taking responsibility to what may come out of the department of homeland security that they have been under your jurisdiction or his deputy secretary is accurate. is that what you're saying? we thank you for that. there was work done by persons on the eb-5 application. is that correct? >> yes. >> you are now saying the work is being directed with better criteria and guidelines that can be checked and double checked by others can make sure the work is correct. >> i think we made a tremendous number of improvements, very significant improvements and better equipped our personnel to administer the program in

adherence of the law, congresswoman. >> when the inspector general said unusual acts did that play into in your interpretation as poor guidelines or structure for the eb-5? >> congresswomen, my involvement in these cases in many other cases whether eb-5 or otherwise, when a case presented issues i became involved in my own employee fraud cases because that the issues involved members of congress, stakeholders brought cases to my attention. i learned from the media of certain cases. if the issue warranted my involvement i think that is

evident by the chronology of my actions in these cases there was the subject to these vector generals review. an issue in the green tech caves wanted my involvement, i worked with colleagues to resolve the issue. when the case to longer warranted involvement i withdrew. >> so let me if i can interpret what you are saying, you have a commitment to this country and you have a commitment to the better workings of the u.s. department of homeland security to make this department ineffective department. >> i do. >> your intervention came about to make the department or to be a problem solver work is brought to your attention. would you interpret your intervention or work in that category? >> absolutely. i would say also have an additional calling and that is an abiding duty to the law. >> let me be clear.

i am a strong supporter of the eb-5 for the poor and minority communities across america and i would hope as the department looks to the process that those communities may be the ultimate benefactors and many in and says and that there are structures in place. i will tell you if there's anyone i believe they can put this in place it would be u.n. secretary johnson because i do have a sense you both want to be problem solvers. so here is my question. would you comment on the value of investment in poor communities of which jobs to be created and in any of the decisions you've been cited for, did you have any personal stake was there in a self-interest benefit financially from any involvement of any of those particular incidents? >> congresswomen i did not have any benefit in any way from the disposition of any case pending

before u.s. citizenship and immigration services. the dramatic increase in interest in the eb-5 cases during my tenure was a reflection of the great interest in seeing an infusion of capital in the creation of jobs in communities suffering high unemployment at the time. >> i think the final point of my inquiry and i think the chair and ranking member for their indulgence is first to get on the record that eb-5 done right can infuse a nap atomic opportunity and jobs across america. when they asked the question. are those some of the elements that you look at in the procedures of your now persons that do the initial review for

decision-making. have those framework in their mind of creation of jobs and helping underserved communities across america? >> bazaar to specify a element of a eb-5 adjudication that a certain amount of capital must be invested in an area of high unemployment that is defined specifically to impact the amount of investment capital that must be made and also one of the elements is the likely, i hope i have my legal terminology correct but the creation of jobs in the united states for the amount of capital 10 jobs must be created or equally be -- equal to it. >> i was just on the note as saying mr. deputy secretary did not benefit from these decisions personally. >> i did not.

>> a thank you for your service. we have gotten a thorough review of your service. .. you are recognized. >> i apologize, mr. chairman, for the late arrival. we were marking up another bill. deputy secretary, thank you so much for being here. i know that this is not quite an

easy task for you today. i am new to the committee and new to this issue and i would like for you to outline the steps that you took as a director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services. and now as deputy secretary to improve the transparency of the i-5 program. >> thank you very much congresswoman. i made a number of reforms to the eb-5 program, culminating i think in the ultimate public development and publication of a governing policy memorandum that set forth clear resolutions to issues in the eb-5 program with which the agency was grappling for quite a number of years. i created a new eb-5 program office and greater a senior executive service leadership

position for that office. we created it in washington, d.c. because of in part because of the amount of interchange we had with other government agencies and stakeholders here in our nation's capital. we selected an individual in the new leadership position i came from a financial regulatory background. we brought strengthened fraud detection and national security protocols and safeguards to the program. they were a series of reforms that we made to the program to address the loud chorus of concerns and complaints that we received not only from members of congress from both parties but especially from the public at large. >> moving forward, you have already identified some changes. what else would you say that you and the department can work on

lessons learned, and how can we improve transparency? >> two things come immediately to mind, and one to which i referred earlier in my testimony, congresswoman. one is the very important protocols with respect to leadership involvement in certain cases that were promulgated this past monday at the direction of the secretary of homeland security, jeh johnson. they were promulgated by the office of general counsel and i think that will bring greater transparency to leadership involvement in particular cases. we also welcomed the opportunity as secretary johnson wrote earlier this week we welcome the opportunity to provide technical advice to members of congress as they review the eb-5 program as it approaches its sunset period of time. that are programmatic changes that can buttress a national security and fraud anti-fraud regime that is currently in

place. >> thank you so much. thank you for your patience. >> the chair recognizes -- it's a closing statement but it may be a questions i'm going to open it up to one last run of questions and then we will close. i have some interest, in the case of the gulf coast state with the dnc former chair terry mcauliffe. it involve eb-5 visas for chinese foreign nationals. do you know to be foreign nationals are? >> i do not. >> okay. yet you did intervene in this case and said that she would rewrite the decision yourself. >> what i did do, mr. chairman, is not offered to write a legal analysis of one of the issues that we resolve around the table. it was a matter of whether the requisite amount of investment

capital was at risk. that's my best recollection of that discussion. >> which is a risk or not, correct. i understand that standard. with these chinese foreign nationals properly vetted for national security reasons? >> i would hope so. it is our responsibility of course, to ensure that individuals who were granted visas do not pose a national security risk to our nation. one of the critical improvements that i made mr. chairman, to our administration of the eb-5 program was to bring our fraud detection and national security directorate his to bear in the vetting of the eb-5 petitioners. >> i commend you for the. in this case do you know if they were vetted for national security reasons? >> i have no involvement to the best of my recollection -- >> would you intervene in a case like this and rewrite the

decision if you knew there was a national security concern? >> mr. chairman, let me say two things. one, i was brought, i became involved in the case to address discrete issues your number one. and not all of the issues involved in the case. but i -- >> this does draw an issue and a concern. >> if i may, pardon me mr. chairman because this is very important and he goes to a number of the issues. i read a report that raised concern of national security or fraud in this case, and i referred this case immediately myself to our fraud detection and national security directorate. winning issue arose in the green tape case comfortably to a subsequent to a resolution of the at risk management and contiguity issues involved in the case i learned of a

concern. i believe it was a public concern, not one that percolated within our own agency. i brought in our fraud detection and national security personnel to look at it. >> in this case the? >> in this case. >> i'm glad you do that. at first you said i hope so but i have a more definitive response. i would like to know, because i don't know who they are. i would like for the apartment to produce to me the names of these individuals who applied and the background of the national security vetting of these individuals. of course, i make that request if you'll agree to that. >> of course we can. >> lastly just you know, missed sheila jackson lee testified ask you questions earlier, previously. and you said we are always focused on the facts focused on the facts bishop a notification to communities that provide an avenue for undimmed -- for undue influence on the adjudication.

and that should be independent based on the loss and the facts which he stated previously. i think the only issues, if you create a policy, which he did i think you need to follow it. maybe they don't follow what can create a new policy. when you say that there should be preferential treatment as a policy and yet you may, it's one thing if ms. rice points out numbers of congress to contact all the time and we just ask that you take a look at the case. these cases are a little different from that. these cases you set up a separate board to deal specifically with 249 petitions, and then another case you overrule the cases you have already approved. in one case decided you're going to rewrite the decision yourself but it seems to me that's more than just a phone call from a member which we are entitled to do and you entitled to act upon the. in these cases julie went out of

their way in a very much exception to the rule that has the appearance come as you stated in your opening statement, of preferential treatment. i just you say that's the purpose and then, of course, you do penalties here even if the appearances violated it that there should be disciplinary penalties including removal from office. what do you think is appropriate in your case the? >> mr. chairman, i was involved in these cases as it was involved in many, many cases both in the eb-5 program and outside the eb-5 program. so the level of my involvement depended on the need for my involvement to help resolve a difficult issue. my level involvement in these cases is mirrored in other cases as well. and it wasn't a question of who brought the case to my attention, but rather what the case needed to resolve it and it

hurt to the law and a policy. >> just so unclear because a watch on the record. in your opinion you did not violate your own ethics policy? >> if i may, mr. chairman, the inspector general found that by virtue of my involvement in these three cases employees perceived that i exercised undue influence in these cases. i thought i had taken steps to guard against that. i bear responsibility for the perception of my employees. that is my responsibility. and i acknowledge that and i have profound respect for the office of inspector general. in this investigation and throughout their work. >> we appreciate your honesty and candor. deeply that there should be any disciplinary action in your case? >> mr. chairman, senator johnson -- secretary johnson has spoken

with me about this case. about this matter. i should say. he has spoken with me and we discussed not only might involvement in this case, but we discussed lessons learned and we also discussed the protocols that at the time he directed incentives promulgated, which i support and embrace. >> i think the witness for your candor, as always, and honesty. the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> take it very much. deputy secretary -- thank you very much, deputy secretary. the eb-5 program can you for the committee indicate whether or not those individuals who invest in the program, can you describe the vetting of that investor for the committee?

>> there are two issues as best as i recall, congressman, that are at issue. one is a need to ensure that the funds are invested are from a lawful source. and then there's the vetting of the individual him or herself to determine whether they to ensure that they do not pose a national security risk or otherwise of the public safety danger such that their admission to the united states should be denied. more specific than that, i cannot at this moment -- >> so doing your tenure at the department, were you involved in either of those two processes within the eb-5 program? >> i did not conduct the vetting or the forensic work myself. >> is it commonplace for members of congress to contact usi s. on

behalf of the eb-5 program? >> congressman, as i mentioned we received more than 1500 communications for members of congress per year about the eb-5 program. the number of communications we receive from congress about this program dwarfs the number of communications we received about any other program we administer. >> is it not in common for governors or other interested individuals to contact usis on behalf of the eb-5 program? >> the eb-5 program was the subject of communications from all corners and all quarters by virtue of two very distinct forces at play.

number one, the increasing importance of the program because of the challenges our economy faced at that time. and number two the poor administration of the program on our agency, which i should underscore was not the fault of our adjudicators but rather the fault of the institution in not providing those adjudicators who are tremendously hard-working and dedicated and talented public servants, not providing them with the support they needed. these are very complicated legal business, economic cases. >> and that contact either by members of congress or governors or state other state and local officials has been old democrats and republicans the? >> yes sir. >> and so did you have your staff -- for your staff thought this kind of contact should not take place?

>> we were proud of our responsiveness to members of congress. it's our responsibility. >> so if anybody contacted you on behalf of the eb-5 program under your direction, you did not deal that that contact was improper or would've changed your decision-making on that particular project? >> and the fact of the contact would not influence our decision making. the question is what would the no longer require based on the facts at issue in the particular case. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> let me thank the witness for being here today.

ms. torres, you have any additional questions? i apologize. okay, you do not okay. thank you. i want to thank the witness for being here today. members of the committee may at some additional questions for the witness and we will ask you to respond to these the right person to the committee role seven c. the hearing record will be open for 10 days and without objection the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> singer and songwriter jim collins appeared on "washington journal" earlier this week to take part in a roundtable discussion on suicide prevention. join us when we were sure the program began begin at 7:20 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> what we've got to do is we've got to figure out now in this

window of time between the announcement of an agreement to agree and seeing the details. we've got to hope that secretary care and president obama take heed of the concerns that of the race all around the world about this agreement. it's not too late to stand up and demand the kind of details that would help us restrain a nuclear arms race. it may not be too lazy to try to do something more in terms of bringing iraq back in is a sort of my theme on this panel i would just go i think we're greatly underestimating jill strategic risk. the idea that this is going everybody is going to open up iran investment will pour in these countries will really get along well well, yeah investment will pour in and iran will use its wealth as it sees

fit for self and brandeis but. it will support ashore olive sided shooter -- bashar al-assad. it will further squeezed the saudi regime through its efforts in oman and jim and. so there's no end to the conflict in this region that were looking at decades of struggle. armed struggle using the symbols of religion going after the politics of identity using the newest shape and ambitions of ms. led young people who believe they can find heaven by killing innocent people. all of that is simply. this nuclear agreement is just a small part of it and we have to be wise enough to use the agreement to not only deal with the nuclear issue but try to address and shape the larger issue. this is not the region you can

handle by u.s. forces. we put our armed forces in. in my view is the single biggest strategic error estimate by the united states of america. saddam hussein said if we attacked we would open up the gates of hell. since he told those 15 years earlier we're going to have -- it only lasted four days, we didn't leave and we said the gates of hell. but when you look at the consequences of the end of it the opening of the rent the clash that's gone on, the rise of sectarianism and civil war you realize these are issues that are much deeper, much stronger and much more powerful than we can resolve with 100,000 troops. >> that's just a short portion of the recent event looking at global risk. you can see that in its entirety tonight starting at eight eastern right here on c-span2.

>> 150 years ago this weekend a grieving nation gathered along the route of abraham lincoln's funeral train as it made its way from washington, d.c. to his final resting place in springfield, illinois. this sunday at 2:30 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3 we are live from oak ridge cemetery in springfield to commemorate the anniversary of president lincoln's funeral was over 1000 reenactors and re-creation of the 1865 eulogy, speeches and musical performances as well as historians and authors on the funeral journey at a tour of the newly re-created lincoln funeral car. also on c-span this weekend saturday at 10 a.m. eastern the grand prize winners in our student came documentary competition. the festivities at the state visit of japanese prime ministers shinzo abe including his arrival at the white house and that those at the dinner in his honor. sunday morning, the supreme court of the united states oral

arguments on issue of same-sex marriage on whether the 14th amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same-sex. and on c-span2's booktv this weekend saturday night at 10 on "after words." >> navy secretary ray mabus says using drones have a lot of advantages including flying in tight spaces. secretary mabus spoke at the national press club in washington, d.c. earlier this

week regarding the future of the navy. his remarks any question and answer session are about one hour. >> recent pentagon developments show a navy secretary ray mabus sees change ahead for the military branch that he oversees. last week he directed his staff to create an advisory council to, quote, assist, accelerate and enable innovation to thrive. the week before he announced plans to avoid a new deputy assistant secretary to focus solely on unmanned systems such as aerial drones and robotic submarines. since assuming his post in may 2009, mabus, a former governor of mississippi hasn't hesitated to try new things. he's got a page on facebook.

[laughter] he has named ships for former congresswoman gabrielle giffords and labour leader cesar chavez. is made cameo appearances on the navy crime drama ncis. [laughter] despite these new things that are other things for the navy that remain constant. u.s. vessels are currently deployed to hotspots all over the world. recently and may be repositioned by u.s. carrier battle group in the arabian sea as a teacher situation in yemen deteriorated. in recent days all i said then on the strait of hormuz come as a cargo ship flying the flag of the marshall islands was seized by iranian naval forces. we look forward to hearing how secretary mabus plans to handle these many challenges, all the while crafting a navy of the future. please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to secretary of the navy ray mabus.

[applause] >> john, thank you so much. and thank all of you for having me here and for being here. i'm only going to call out one person before i start, and that's my esteemed predecessor, senator john warner. [applause] every secretary of the navy aspires to be john warner, and i just want to point out that this is john warner the person, not john warner the submarine. [laughter] but john warner the submarine will be commissioned in august of this year and will spend the next 40 years patrolling the

waters of this earth, protecting the country that senator warner, secretary warner has served so well and so long. [applause] what the navy and marine corps uniquely give this country is presence, being in the right place, not just at the right time but all the time. we get places quicker. we can stay as long as we need to. we take whatever we need with us. and we don't have to ask anyone's permission to get the job done. and part of that presence has ensured the global economic system for the past 70 years. keeping the sea lanes open for

everybody involved in peaceful trade has been the reason that the world's economy is working as well as it does, because 90% of all trade goes by sea, and 95% of all voice communications and all data go under the sea. so the 21st century very definitely is a maritime century. a chief of navy from asia told me one time that the difference between soldiers and sailors is that soldiers look down at maps they see lines, they see boundaries they see obstacles; sailors look up over the

horizon, they see no lines, they see no boundaries, they only want to see what comes next, what comes over that horizon. and our founding fathers understood the necessity for a great navy. in the constitution, in article i, it says that congress has the authority to raise an army, but it has the responsibility to maintain a navy. and in that not-so-subtle distinction lies the importance of the united states navy and marine corps. we deploy equally in times of peace and in times of war. we have never been a garrison force and never will be. there are no permanent homecomings for sailors and marines. we've also been at the forefront of technological and other

innovations for as long as we've had a navy. and i'm going to talk about energy in a little while, but we led the country. we moved from sail to coal, from coal to oil. we pioneered the use of nuclear. and the way that i have tried to organize my thinking, and the way that the navy approaches this presence and the responsibilities that we have to this country, are four ps: people, our sailors and marines; platforms, our ships and our aircraft; power, the fuel for those platforms; and partnerships partnerships with the american people, partnerships with industry partnerships with our allies around the world. i'm going to start out with platforms.

you know, there's a lot of conversation and has been for a little while about the size of our fleet. and if you listen to some folks this administration is just gutting the navy, yeah, we're heading downhill and we're heading downhill fast. nothing could be further from the truth. and then there's this arbitrary ship counting, the way we count ships. so let me give you a couple of facts here. on 9/11/2001, the u.s. navy had 316 ships.

by 2008, after one of the great military buildups in our history, we were down to 278 ships and shrinking. in the five years before i became secretary, the navy put 27 ships under contract. that was not enough to keep the size the size of the fleet from going down. it was also not enough to keep our shipyards active and in business. in the first five years i've had this job, we have put 70 ships under contract. and we've done it with a smaller top line. we're going to get back to more than 300 ships by the end of this decade, 304 to be exact. and the reason i talk about these numbers is that congress last year, in the national

defense authorization act, said we couldn't count patrol craft forward deployed in the arabian gulf as part of the battle fleet. now, it was done because it didn't match the political narrative that some people were going into, that the navy was getting smaller, that we were shrinking. but i'll tell you, those sailors onboard those patrol craft think they're in the battle fleet. our combat commanders who request them think they're in the battle fleet. we think they're in the battle fleet. and i guarantee you the iranians think they're in the battle fleet. and right now there are three of those around the maersk.

and i'd just like to take politics out of this a little while. let us count the ships that the combat commanders ask for. let us get a real count on how many ships there are. and let's recognize that the decisions that were made 10, 12 years ago are what we're dealing with today, because when you build ships they take a long time and they're very expensive. if you miss a year building a ship, you never make it up, never. and so we're dealing today, the size of our fleet today was decided 10 or 12 years ago. the size of our fleet five years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now, 20 years from now is being decided with the decisions we make today. and quantity has a quality all its own. we've got to have enough of

those big gray hulls on the horizon, reassuring our allies deterring potential adversaries and keeping those sea lanes open, keeping the world economy moving, because for the first time in history there's a dominant naval power, and has been for the last 70 years that's kept the sea lanes open not just for ships flying our own flag or those of our allies but for everybody. so i'll give you a couple of quick examples on shipbuilding. i mean, we got, we went from 27 ships in five years to 70 ships in five years just by doing some very simple, very basic business things, firm fixed-price contracts, competition, mature technology stable designs.

the couple of examples i'll use the ddg-51s. they're built in two shipyards bath, maine and pascagoula mississippi. we were building two a year. we want both those shipyards to stay in business for all sorts of reasons, competition being right up there at the top, but there really wasn't any competition because each one was getting one every year and the prices kept going up. so in 2012 we bid out three, and we said the low bid gets the third ship, and oh, by the way the difference in the high bid and the low bid comes out of the high bidder's profit. one shipyard just crushed the other in that competition. and the next year we bid out nine, low bid gets five, high bid gets four with an option we could swing between the two, and once again, the high bidder's, the difference in the high bid

and the low bid came out of the high bidder's profit. funny thing, the other shipyard won in a pretty dramatic fashion. we're saving about $300 million a year per ship in these things. the second one is the virginia-class submarine, of which the john warner will be the newest one. we signed the largest navy contract in history last summer to buy 10 of these submarines. we paid for nine. we got a free submarine. [laughter] it was like having one of those punch cards. i bought nine, give me my 10th one free. and as john said i just announced that we're going to have a deputy assistant secretary of the navy focusing on unmanned, only unmanned.

we're also going to have a new end code, n-99, on navy staff focusing on unmanned, because unmanned is the future. and we're the only service, the only that does it above the sea, on the sea and under the sea. and we needed a champion. we needed somebody who, because the technology cuts across all sorts of platforms and in all sorts of realms, and we were simply running too many one-off programs doing this. and you may have seen some pictures of the x-47b just successfully showed it could get refueled. that's our unmanned carrier aircraft, just got refueled in the air. nobody's flying that thing. i mean, it's programmed to go find the carrier, land, take off, go find the tanker. and as i said, that's the future. that's the future of warfare, whether underwater, surface or

in the air. people. that's the bedrock of our success. we've got the best force we've ever had, but we put them, and we have put them for years now under a lot of stress. i'm going to be making some announcements in may, the 12th and 13th, about some of the things we're trying to do to help the force and to maintain the quality that we've got, and to keep some people. things like career intermission programs that lets people go out of the navy for a while, come back in but compete as though they never left so they're not competing against people that have been there the whole time for promotions. things like promoting based on merit, not on your group as much. we don't have enough women in either the navy or the marine

corps, and we've got to do a better job of recruiting and we've got to do a better job of retaining those women. and along those lines, and this is sort of a seems like a small area, but i do think it's symbolically important, i was at the very first army-navy in, my secretary in 2009. by the way navy won but that's been true for the last 13 years, so that doesn't make it special or anything. [laughter] but i watched as the corps of cadets and the brigade of midshipmen marched out, and

that's one of the most moving things you could possibly see. corps of cadets came out and everybody was dressed exactly the same, same uniforms. midshipmen came out, women were wearing a different uniform and a different cover. and so we're in the midst of changing it. we have changed it at the academy and we're in the midst of changing the uniforms across the navy and the marine corps so that when you look out you see american sailors and marines, not particularly female sailors or male sailors. if we ask any other group to wear a different uniform imagine the trouble we'd be in. and this is symbolic in terms of not segregating women, of making sure that they are substantively and symbolically the heart of our force power.

dod is the largest single user of fossil fuels on earth. we're a little bit more than a third of that. in 2009 i set energy goals for the navy, the biggest one of which is by no later than 2020 at least half of all our power, both ashore and afloat, will come from nonfossil-fuel sources. i did this for one reason, to make us better warfighters. it's got some great side effects in terms of being better stewards of the environment, but we're better fighters because of this. we're going to be there on our shore bases this year. we're going to be five years early. so by the end of '15, half of all naval energy on our shore bases, and we're a seagoing service, but we own 3.5 million acres of land and have 117,000 buildings. so we will be purchasing a

gigawatt of renewable energy by the end of this year and we don't particularly care what the source is. we're doing wind. we're doing solar. we're doing geothermal hydrothermal landfill, almost anything. but energy is a vulnerability. it's a vulnerability for two reasons. one is supply. we were dependent too much on countries that may not wish us the best. and second is price. and the price of oil and gas have gone down dramatically recently but in the first few years i was secretary we got presented with several billion dollars of unbudgeted fuel-price increases just because of the volatility in that market. and while it's down right now, you track the long-term flow of oil and gas and the price is only going in one direction with

movement around that line. next year, we're going to deploy the great green fleet. it's going to be a carrier strike group. we've demonstrated it. we demonstrated it in 2012 carrier strike group. the carrier's going to be sailing on nuclear. every type of aircraft and every ship other ship in the strike group will be 50/50 blends of biofuels and avgas and marine diesel. we've certified every single ship and every single aircraft. i was ambassador to saudi arabia in the `90s, and there was a great quote there from the oil minister, you know, of the `80s, zaki yamani, who said that the stone age didn't end because we

ran out of stones. it didn't. it ended because we invented something better. and the navy has always been on the cutting edge of energy and energy transformation. and there have always been naysayers, they've always been wrong, and they're wrong this time, too. and finally, partnerships. we're america's away team. when the navy and marine corps are doing their job, we're usually a long long way from home and so the american people don't get to see how hard the job is and how good the sailors and marines are that do it. so part of our partnership is with the american people in reconnecting them to that service and making sure that the service reflects the people being defended. and it's one of the reasons that i worked hard and we brought nrotc back to harvard, yale, princeton and columbia. we've also added naval rotc at

rutgers and arizona state, the two most diverse campuses in this country. there is a danger with an all-volunteer force that that force will get separated from the people that it defends. and that's one of the reasons we've got to do these partnership things, and it's one of the reasons i name ships what i do. i've also named a ship the medgar evers, for the assassinated civil rights hero. i've named them for medal of honor recipients, for senator dan inouye because i think we ought to name ships that reflect our values; and that when those ships are around the world and people it's the only americans a lot of people will ever see, and they ask, well, who was medgar evers, who was cesar

chavez, who's gabby giffords, we can talk about them and take that story of the american values that that ship represents. second is our partnership with industry. we don't build anything that we use. and that partnership, industry deserves to make a fair return but the taxpayers also deserve to get a good deal. we owe industry some things. we owe them stable designs, quit designing ships while you're building them. you'd think that would be pretty straightforward, it's not. if you get a new gee-whiz technology, put it on the next ship. don't try to force it on the one you're building now. and let them know how many ships you're going to build and when because in return they owe us some things. they owe us the infrastructure improvements and the training.

and they owe us, if we keep the designs stable, every ship of the same class, every aircraft of the same class should come down in price. and by the way we've bought a lot more ships, it has not been at the expense of air. we've also bought 40% more aircraft in the last five years than in the five years that preceded it. and finally, the international partnerships. we've got the naval attaché from australia here. i travel a lot, and i travel for two reasons. one is to see sailors and marines where they are, not where i am. and second is to work with our international partners. i've now been a million, 40,000 air miles; 132 different countries and territories. we're doing something with every single one of them.

and it doesn't matter how big we are, it doesn't matter how good we are, we can't do this alone. and we've got to have those partnerships and they've got to be set up in times of calm, because in times of crisis you can surge people, you can surge equipment; what you cannot surge is trust. and so that's what we're building on a day-to-day basis. so just in terms of value, the navy and marine corps bring the best value for our taxpayers and our country where it counts when it counts. so from the navy semper fortis always courageous. from the marines, semper fidelis, always faithful. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> thank you so much mr. secretary. and i mentioned in my introduction to situation over at this critical those with the iranian navy seizing the marshall islands flag vessel, and i wonder if you could bring us up-to-date, if there's anything new to report on the situation from the navy perspective. >> there has been no change in terms of the situation, at least at 11:00 when i headed down this way. we have the three patrol craft in the region. we have the uss farragut their a guided missile destroyer in the region, and i think it's a pretty good example of presence

to give our leaders options. so whatever our leadership decides, they've got a whole range of options because of those naval assets. >> to see is a busy place these days with piracy of the lord the horn of africa unrest around the arabian gulf, and migrants fleeing africa and the mediterranean. how is the navy handling its multiplicity of missions? and they feel you have sufficient resources? and osha our allies be hoping? >> i know this come up on cards but then i ask you asked the question of? is a good reason i'm asking come it's not a bad reason. first question gets the coin in all all hands calls. [laughter] we are handling the multiplicity of missions the same way we've

always done it. i mean i get debriefed every time a carrier strike group comes back in and every time an amphibious ready group comes back and the one sure thing, the one certainty is that they face something that they did not expect. and the way that you do that is you've got to every flexible platforms and very flexible people. we push responsibility down further and faster than any other organization. we expect our very youngest sailors and marines to do a great job and we are not disappointed. but when we train to the maximum standards that we can, but they've got to know and they do, that you are going to be things coming over the horizon that are unexpected and they're going to have to deal with it in real time. i think the american people have reason to believe that we can spend less money now that we are come out of two land wars, and they're right.

but doing it with sequester a something like that is just dumb. that's a technical term. i apologize for its. [laughter] you know it's not putting money against strategy. it's not putting money where we think it needs to go. it's just cutting, mindlessly cutting. and so the president's budget for this year that we just finished testifying about gives us the resources that we need to do the missions that the country expects us to do. and again, if you missed the year on things like shipbuilding, you can't get it back. and, finally we have great allies. we really do. we have an agreement with the australians on biofuels so that when we deploy the great green

fleet we will be able to buy biofuels in australia. and we have exercised all over the world. we have operations together all over the world. and it's imperative that our allies do continue to do this but also step up their game a little bit in terms of what they're spending on how much they're spending, because the world is getting more complicated, not less. more dangerous, not less, and the myriad of threats, there is no one threat stream anymore. that are state actors. they are nonstate actors. there are irregular warfare. there's transnational crime. there's everything that you can think of. and every one of us is going to be affected by it. every one of us has to their fair share of the burden.

>> is there any discussion or consideration of moving a second carrier into the gulf region, as was the case about three years ago, when one carrier was removed? >> no. [laughter] al-qaeda a little longer answer than that. the thing that was the aberration was the two carriers there. one carrier gives us all the presents, all the firepower that we need, along with associated ships. and i'll give you an example of presence. when the decision was made to strike isis the carrier was on station in less than 30 hours conducting strikes, and for 54 days it was the only strike option. and it wasn't because we didn't have other assets, other aircraft in the region. we did.

but the countries where they were would not give them permission to arm and take off. we didn't have to ask anybody. we were flying off of sovereign american territory. >> speaking of carriers, this questioner notes that the carrier-based air operations now amounts to protect -- project our presence anywhere in the world on a moment's notice and that it was over a century ago that is really breakthrough technology, this right to ability, occurred. what can the navy do in 2015 that will rival his breakthrough? or what will be the next great breakthrough similar to the way that kerry was a century ago? >> well, part of that answer may be the carrier because they carrier is exactly that. it's what takes off the deck that's more important than what's on the deck. and i talked about unmanned.

i mean that's the revolution that's year. autonomous unmanned vehicles that can do isr, that can do strike, that can do really long-term monotonous tasks like refueling, but can do it all autonomously. and we've got a whole lot of other cutting edge technology cutting edge science project. we've got a laser weapon now in the arabian gulf. we've got railgun under development. we've got some as i said gee whiz of scientific stuff going on. part of my job and part of our jobs is to get those from the lab to the warfighter quicker because that railgun we've been

working on that since the '80s. we're going to put ownership to test it next year. that's just way too long way too long, and we've got to cut through some of that. >> we have a few different questions related to drones. will drones replace attack planes and fighters? and another questioner says, your comments about the f-35 being the last manned fighter drew criticism from aviators. why is it more important to move more briskly into these unmanned systems? >> yeah, but it drew praise from john mccain. [laughter] [applause] who i believe as an aviator himself. it's important because, well, number one we always want to have two generations of aircraft

on our decks. and i said come and i believe that the f-35 as much as we need it, as much as we want it asas much as we're looking forward to having it in the fleet should be animal certainly would be our last manned aircraft. the f-35 itself, one of the big selling point for his it makes decisions so fast that the pilot is not involved in a lot of those decisions. to have the endurance, to have the payload to have the stealth characteristics, unmanned is the only way you're going to get to a lot of places. i mean you cannot subject the human body to the stresses in terms of g. forces order ration that you can that you can do with unmanned. and we're not going to be putting people in harm's way. i mean, they should formally