hiring, we'll talk first about the border patrol and afterward about aviation hiring. i understand the border patrol is currently 1002 under 68 pages below the mandated personnel floor of 21,370, a for that is not new. it's been around for a while. so the under execution of agents is not due to hiring up to a new level as it is with customs officers but sustaining existing workforce. ..

agents. with reduction of overall numbers. do you anticipate a need to reexamine and restructure how the border patrolmans bases and forward operating bases? >> i share very much the concern we discussed on this hiring issue. for the border patrol to be in a downward spiral, which means we're not able to hire as fast as attrition is very concerning. i have talked with your staff also about the number of programs that we put in place, particularly to speed up the process. so in these new hiring hubs we can get people through in 160 days until at times, well over a year. that is important. the close cooperation with the department of defense as people leave the department of defense

and the active duty military to be able to hire them into the border patrol or into customs and border protection is particularly important. working with congress for additional pay for very difficult locations where they work, hardship reimbursement would be particularly helpful. along with things that we've discussed and the age issues. when we talk about the border patrol, you know, we realize that their salaries were cut anywhere from 3 to $5,000 as a result of the auo, additional over time money but we've now transitioned to the border patrol pay reform act. you should be very happy to know 9% of the border patrol agents who have now opted into the number of hours that we would work have opted into the maximum number. instead of a 40 hour work week, they will work a 50 hour work week for the additional money

which they're clearly deserving of. in turn that actually results in us getting more boots on the ground. >> fy 17 request calls for reduction of 300 in the overall strength of the border patrol. however we understand many stations along the southern border are facing staffing setbacks for variety of reasons. there is no empirical data to inform how many agents we need. how do you justify reductions in manning, when cpb can not articulate validated requirements for number of border patrol agents combined with technology requirements to surveil the border? when will we see validated requirements and resourcing model similar to the model used by the office of field operations? >> i don't think there is anything more strass -- frustrating to the heads of

border patrol or myself and secretary not able to have a set of metrics, that said how many border patrol agents do you actually need. it has been unbelievably difficult and complex. it is as complex when we try to decide how many police officers we needed in seattle versus how many police officers were needed in the city like washington, d.c. but we're close. we're much closer now to developing that set of met ticks that would be helpful. as you know the offset in reduction of personnel would be to fund radios, improvement in the radio system. the vast majority of which would go to the border patrol and to their vehicles many of which now are leaving a lifespan makes them not as serviceable as they should be. there is nothing more frustrating having an agent can't dot patrol because radio is not operable or because of the vehicle.

we're looking using those funds for that. >> commissioner, while we have long discussed hiring of customs officers and border patrol agents i'm equally as concerned with vacancy for interdiction agents. marine interdiction agents and air crew enforcement agents. by your own numbers, cbs 12% below the goal for air interdiction agents. 93 below the goal of 775 agents. how can we officially utilize our air assets if we don't have enough pilots to fly the aircraft? my understanding that corpus christie is only manned to fly two, maybe three missions at a time. yet we have six p-3s and three uas stations, at the facility. do we hire more agents or we

hire retire the aircraft or vacancies impacting air operations? further i hear pilots coming out of the military who have been flying combat missions overseas are failing the cbp polygraph. what is cbp doing to address hiring and polygraph issues? how do we address air crew vacancies for the p-3s who are mostly former navy when the navy is no longer training p-3 air crews? >> so one of the difficulties in hiring for air and marine it is a very competitive environment and one of my last flights, the first officer had been a pilot for us in san diego and was now flying for delta. and so we know and we've seen this huge increase in both domestic passenger travel and also international travel. by air. so we're in a competitive

environment. one of the difficulties has been though that this pilot coming out of military must undergo same level of scrutiny and screening someone hiring from outside would go through. quite frankly they come with top secret clearance if they're pilot in the military. i don't see any reason why we can't continue to work with the office of personnel management and others to bring them on board much more quickly without going through as many hoops we go through for others. last thing i mentioned in amongst all those different job descriptions in air and marine we have, i think four different pay scales and we are interested in working toward the same law enforcement pay system that the fbi and marshals and dea have, which is law enforcement availability pay, leap pay. which provides additional 25% of salary for extra hours that they would normally work. we kind of like to level that

playing field for all of them. so we'll continue to keep working on that. of course i think you know too our push has been to hire with the appropriated money the additional customs and border protection officers plus stop the bleeding in the border patrol. >> [inaudible]. >> commissioner i would like to go back to the whole issue of border security and the fact that we don't have enough border patrolman power there. and we also hear a lot about the fact that you know, we have to secure our border. when i go book home i hear a lot of anxiety about that because the impression is that our borders are fairly open and that they're unprotected. in practical terms how does cpb

define it us border security mission? what are the essential measures we should be judging cbp's performance? >> we look very much particularly with the border patrol between the ports of entry. which look very much at security of border patrol. do they have operational awareness or what we call situational awareness do they know number of people attempting in particular areas they are coming across? they also have the information and liaison with their state and city and county partners all along the border. we know many of those border cities from el paso to san diego, tucson, have some of the lowest crime rates of any of the large cities in the country. so understanding and recognizing there are places we use unmanned aircraft. there are places so desolate and rugged so difficult we're not

seeing people attempt in any way, shape or form to cross or enter the border illegally. if they're not using those locations we need to take those finite border patrol resources and allow them and put them in the places where we do have greater numbers. but, i, you know, as a police chief i was always held accountable for managing our people, responding to quickly, making sure they were trained and have the equipment they needed but i was never held accountable for a crime-free city, whether it was buffalo or seattle. there will always be gaps and we will work very hard to make sure the gaps are narrowed. >> i would like to go now to an issue we discussed during last year's hearing, and that's the treatment of unaccompanied mexican children who cross the border which is different from those children that are coming from central america.

last july, jo released a report on treatment of unaccompanied children in custody. gao found that cpb personnel were not appropriately following the requirements of the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. for instance, cpb forms lacked specific indicators and questions agents, officers should use to assess whether a child was has credible fear of returning to mexico. could be at risk of being trafficked if returned or was capable of making an independent decision to voluntary, voluntarily return. the report also found that cpb personnel did not document the basis for the decisions they made relative to these factors. gao found that cpb repatriated 95% of unaccompanied mexican children it apprehended between 2009 and 2014, including 93% of

mexican children under the age of 14, even though cpb's 2009 memorandum on the treatment of unaccompanied children state has children under 14 are generally presumed to be able to make an independent decision. i saw that the department recently signed new repatriation agreements with mexico and to what extent were those agreements in response to the gao report? and what specific changeses to repatriation to they entail? >> as a result of the questions and the discussion last year, and also as a result of gao we did a new series of training for the border patrol to make sure that those questions are appropriately asked, and that responses are appropriately recorded. for that decision involving mexican children. at same time within the last month assistance secretary

berson and the director soldana from i.c.e. i believe were in arizona to sign new repatriation agreements with mexico to make sure that there was close coordination with the government of mexico upon returning someone. so, that they wouldn't be returned at night. they wouldn't be returned in an environment that may be considered hostile or dangerous. and that their property, whatever property they crossed the border with would be also returned with them. so i think that progress in training and progress in the additional repatriation agreement with mexico is helpful and, as you know, vast majority of unaccompanied children we are apprehending are coming from three central american countries and really not mexico right now. >> i see that my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman rogers. >> mr. commissioner, you and i

have been working many times together over the years to curtail drug being trafficking and abuse. i said many times and i heard you say many times there is no one answer to the problem. it does take enforcement, treatment and education, holiestic approach. the president's budget rightly put the prescription drug and heroin abuse in the for front but largely focuses on treatment and demand side of the equation. if we want to see further success in treating abuse and alert the public about the danger present we have to be sure enforcement on the front end is emphasized. in fact ironclad. your agencies charged with protecting the borders and you got the primary role to play in all of this.

dea says, heroin seizures in the u.s. have increased in each of the last five years. nearly doubling from 2010 to 2014. your agency reports seizing over 96 huge ounces of heroin during -- 9600 ounces of heroin during fiscal 2014. yet your budget would reduce number of agents patrolling our borders by some 300. how can you justify taking boots off the ground in spite of this huge increase in heroin and introduction. >> mr. chairman, i go back to all could of things. one, on the heroin issue, the majority of any heroin that we seize is not between the ports of entry. it is smuggled in through the ports of entry.

whether san ysidro or jfk airport. they are carried in concealed part of the vehicle or carried by an individual. we don't get much heroin seized by the border patrol coming through. just because there are a lot of risks to the smugglers and the difficulty of trying to smuggle it through. but when i look at, when i look at the number of border patrol agents we are already down, and i look at offsetting, being able to provide additional radio equipment and additional vehicles, as a result of using some of that money, or the majority of that money to the border patrol, i think it's, i think it's a decision that will help, we know that technology is better for their safety and it is also better to get them out to be able to patrol. >> changing subjects. the visa waiver program, per

mitts citizens ever 38 countries to travel to the u.s. for business or tourism up to 90 days without a visa and in return those 38 countries must permit u.s. citizens to remain in their countries for a similar length of time. since it's inception in 1986, that program has eye involved into a comprehensive -- evolved into comprehensive security partnership with many of america's closest allies. the department administers the, the visa waiver program in consultation with the state department. and they utilize a risk-based multi-layered approach to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals, and other bad actors from traveling to this country.

with the advent of the terrorist era that we're in now, the congress deemed it impossible to live with that kind of a freeboarder program with 38 countries in the world for fear of terrorist infiltration. undetected. so that we passed the visa waiver program improvement and terrorist travel prevention act of 2015. which established new eligibility requirements for travel under the visa waiver program, to include travel restrictions. they don't bar a person from coming to the u.s. point-blank but they do require that the traveler obtain a u.s. visa. which then gives us the chance to investigate the background of the person. so in december, that law was

passed. can you, outline for us programmatic changes concerning aliens from these countries, how soon you will be able to implement the changes if they're not already there? >> secretary johnson several months before the passage of this authorized additional series of questions to be put into the esta, this system in which we would record information with more detail and more specificity. for instance, more specificity when it comes to the location that a person would be staying. additional contact information, cell phone and email, those types of pieces lay was passed with dual citizenship with the countries outlined, we canceled 17,000 travel approval requests

had already been basically approved. you know, this system lasts using it within a two year window. what is not always recognized with the system that a person is continually vetted. those names are run against databases every 24 hours. if you ad applied and you weren't traveling eight or nine or 10 months, every single day your name would be run against a series of databases because we don't want you suddenly to say i'm going to use the esta it already has been approved, i will get on a plane. we say, well, wait, in the last 4hours or 72 hours some information of a derogatory nature came up and needs to be, needs to be worked on. we work closely with the department of state. i testified recently on two hearings, issue. the fact we canceled 17,000 visas or estas and required

those individuals then go back to an embassy or consulate and get a waiver and we will continue, including standing up at national targeting center along with the state department personnel sitting right next to us, terrorist prevention group that will look at this much more in depth on a 24-hour basis. >> are you properly staffed to handle this increased work load? >> in the budget we requested i believe an additional 40 personnel to go to the targeting center. frankly, if there is a real jewel in the crown in cpb when it comes to prevention i would say our national targeting centers for cargo and passenger anticipation of things that could be dangerous or people that could be dangerous. i know a number of members and number of staff visited it. i would encourage them to see that 24/7 operation.

but asking for these additional people, including working accounting network division to work on human smuggling and drug smuggling, is a good prevention technique. >> the legislation also required program countries to validate passports, report lost or stolen passports, use interpol screening and start passenger information exchange agreements. can you tell us the, what these requirements are and how they will be put in place? >> they must vet or they must check that foreign passport against interpol's lost and stolen database. they must dot that. the requirement with visa waiver i think is not often talked about, but really quite helpful, it brings country who is are like-minded, who want to prevent

terrorism and want to prevent smugs link, it brings us together in a better information sharing environment. we have in cpb a permanent liaison to interpol. we have two permanentnant liaisonses to euro poll policing. we have a number of cpb personnel in airports where they don't do enforcement on foreign territory but work closely with their foreign counterparts. that is part of the benefit of frankly the visa waiver program. brings us together to all assess risk and realize we're all in the same boat. >> legislation directed you to terminate program countries for failure to comply with certain requirements. do you foresee the termination of any countries from the program? >> i'm not familiar with that i know that secretary johnson in counsel with secretary kerry and

also the director of the office of national intelligence just added three additional countries to that, to the original four that congress passed. and so that increases our work load but also improves our risk assessment and our safety and security. >> thank you, mr. commissioner, for your service. >> thank you. >> mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, commissioner. glad to see you here again. >> thanks. >> i want to pick up where the ranking member left off on the question of border security, how you conceive of that going forward in terms of the mix of elements that would go to make up the kind of situational awareness and border security you're talking about. i understand this is a mix of personnel, infrastructure and technology that we're talking about here. i share the concern that's been expressed repeatedly this morning about the short fall in

personnel that this budget would apparently leave us with. something like 700 customs officials, 1300 border patrol agents. my own view, and i think it is widely shared, the long term, true and effective border security isn't going to be achieved with all the money we might throw at it without comprehensive immigration reform. and now since it has been brought up here this morning i think maybe a little reality check is in order. the president in fact pushed very hard in cooperation with the congress for years for comprehensive immigration reform. he worked effectively and successfully with the senate. the senate passed a bipartisan, immigration reform bill. but then the house never took it up. that's the problem. that's the problem with

comprehensive immigration reform. it was only after months, indeed years, of that kind of stonewalling that the president did take executive action. it was limited action. it is very well reasoned and legally sound action, i believe. to exercise degree of prosecutorial discretion to whom we initiate immigration enforcement on. then the republicans take that executive action as new excuse, new excuse not to act. so, frustratingly we fall short, far short of the comprehensive immigration reform that might deal with this larger issue. so, we returned the border security and that, that issue too has become inflamed and in recent months thanks largely to the presidential campaign. people with little immigration

or policy experience including some high-profile presidential candidates have said, once again we can simply build a fence. we can seal the southern border and one actually says we can send the bill to mexico. now, when i was chairman of this committee the fence loomed very large, and we appropriated on this subcommittee for hundreds of miles of pedestrian and vehicle fence. we attempted with mixed successive to say to exercise some measure of cost benefit analysis with these various eggments of the fence, but we built it. there was a huge political push on at the time to build that fence well, now it is back. now the fence is back, and, i'm going to give you a chance to comment explicitly on this. what does a secure border look like and do we need more fence.

>> it does mean when we have situational and operational awareness, we know what is coming and where our gaps are, that is particularly helpful. and the fence that has been built, approximately 600 miles of different times of fencing including tactical fencing, very hyphening. double and triple fencing in some locations and some to prevent a vehicle. the border patrol uses that type of technique and those types of fence technologies in order to move people that may be attempting to come across into different locations where they can have more resources. we also, you know, clearly recognize that any win who is traveled and spent time on the border as i think everyone of the members here has, that there are lots of locations in which fencing and walls would not be able to be built. would not work and would not be able to with stand, even with

the fencing that we have, we spend considerable resources repairing and keeping that fencing in line. so, you know, we think it is combination of all of the other things that we do. tactical arrow stats, patrols, infrared, fixed towers, ground sensors, on and on and on make for a more secure border. >> would it be your judgment that the budget you submitted gets that balance right in terms of the mix of elements going forward? are there major, are there major gaps, major omissions you would look to be addressed in later years. >> i think the budget we submitted is very realistic budget. i would be if we could hire number of border patrol agents and customs protection officers

fully trained on the job. that is the number one priority because regardless of all of the technology, this is still a very labor intensive and people-oriented kind of business, whether it is at a port of entry or between the ports of entry. but i think we submitted a realistic budget that will help us get there. and quite frankly, the committee has been very supportive of a number of initiatives in the past. and i think that's why we made progress. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. stewart. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, thank you for your many years of service and to your, to your peers as well, law enforcement all around the country. it is a difficult time to be in law enforcement. i want you to know many of us support you and the efforts you're trying to undertake. i will ask you a couple questions, and i don't think you will be able to answer them, i would be a little surprised if you are, i would like to explore what we don't know and how good

after feel on some of these things, we may not, for example, i appreciated and i wanted to follow-up on the chairman's conversation about the visa waiver program and you indicated there, and it is in your written testimony, something like 17,000 who have been denied or revoked to date on the esta program. do we have any idea of those 11,000, is that -- 17,000, is that 90% we should have identified? is it 50%? do you have a sense how successful that is? >> the 17,000 are the dual citizens with those four countries. >> that is very easy to identify. >> i would tell you looking at, it is a mix of people, that we've been able to, if there is somebody in that mix, that probably might not have or should not have gotten that. i think that is very possible. but also it's people who fled iran during the overthrow of the shah in 1979 that the have been,

haven't been to iran in 40 years but still have dual citizenship. >> yeah. >> they were canceled too. so you know, it was a broad brush, widely supported by certainly congress and the president. >> but that's a relatively easy thing to do, identify those who have dual citizenship of those targeted countries and i'm guessing you identified most of those people, wouldn't you say? >> we identified them through the fact they already, we knew in the system that they were dual citizens. >> much harder though to identify those that the visa waiver legislation required us to identify, those who had traveled to some of these serious, serious and, syria, some of these questions or countries of question. >> right. >> do you have a sense for how successful we've been identifying those people? because, and let me elaborate. then i will allow you to answer. that's a much harder thing to do and we need partners in order to do that. they may be traveling from europe but we would be unaware

of that travel if it not for european partners or counterparts that made us away of that. department of homeland security, director was really pretty firm on several countries, france, belgium, germany, italy, greece, gave them a february 1 deadline to fix what he called crucial loopholes. can you give us update how our partners doing providing us this information? we would be unaware of it without their input. and they hadn't done a good job of doing that previous. have they gotten better? are our partners doing a better job giving us that information? >> visa waiver results in a lot of partnerships, including exchange of information. so, one, the relationship, particularly after the attacks in paris continues to get strengthened necessity of sharing information. you are exactly correct it is much more difficult than to

detect people because of either broken travel. we rely, one on partner, another partner in another government to perhaps tell us about that. also people do self-declare about having traveled to one of the countries. then lastly, when you enter the united states in that passport has gone through by that customs and border protection officers, just as we did with during ebola screening, we do come across people that have traveled to one of those countries. i think 2011 was the cutoff date you put in place. >> so commissioner, being short on time, let me just ask the question simply. department of homeland security asked these identified partners to, gave them a february 1 deadline to close these loopholes. would you say they have done that effectively? >> i would say they're much better but i couldn't answer for everyone of them and i would be happy to provide that information to you and your staff. >> i wish you would. this is something we have to keep our eye on. some of them are more effective

than others of the let me ask very quickly, one of the things we identified and i think many of us recognized something we had to expand our capabilities, that was using social media to identify someone who may be entering our country and posing a threat. san bernardino there were indications -- i'm not talking about the radicalization. i was talking about those maybe radicalized trying to enter our country and if we use social media as tool we would be able to raise red flags, this person is someone we should look more closely at. previous to that we hadn't done a good job. i don't think it was policy to use that tool. how is that being implemented to use social media to identify those individuals who may be a threat as they're trying to enter the country? >> sure. social media checks would apply throughout dhs to csis, i.c.e., et cetera and secretary johnson has stood up task force within dhs to look expanding and moving forward on the ability to

research and use information and social media that applies, dhs wide, not just for cpb. >> do you know when that task force is supposed to give their report? >> i believe general taylor from, intelligence and analysis is in charge as the chair of that task force. i don't know the date. >> okay. we'll find out. we'll follow up with that. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, thank you, i believe you said earlier this might be your last hearing. i just want to say thank you so much for all the many years of service. i appreciate it. and also appreciate your moderate approach to this. i'm from the border. laredo is 96% hispanic. most hispanic city percentage wise in the country. people know my policies. i like to see moderate approach. we don't like to see open borders. we believe somebody put in

detention they ought to be treated fairly but should have detention, some sort of deterrent. at same time we believe in immigration reform, sensible immigration reform. at same time we think wall is 14th century solution to 21st century problem that we have. so we would like to see the moderation there because we want to see order at the border. and you know, don't want to get political folks on i represent oned border wouldn't give me 90, 95% of the vote when i run. i presume they vote for my policies which pretty much what you do also, moderate approach one of the things we're talking about lately to expand our border beyond the u.s.-mexico border because we spend billions, on the u.s.-mexican border. couple years ago we, i think we put about 80, $85 million to help mexico secure the southern border with guatemala.

i saw some figures over a period of time they actually deported more people than border patrol did over the same amount of time. so just, 8million dollars -- $80 million did a lot to help mexico to help us extend our border. we -- cubans is totally different issue. we were there, costa ricans were telling us in december, people coming in, trying to get into the u.s., they had people from ghana, somalia, nepal and literally name the country, and they were there. so, my question to you, in extending the border out besides the u.s.-mexico border, what else can we do to help the mexicans and our central american folks to help us secure our border? more we stop outside the u.s. border, better it is for us. if you want to address biometric equipment, training we can do? i know you're doing that.

what can we do to step this up? >> congressman, i think the government of mexico has done a really admirable job, particularly in the last year plus in increasing, improving their border. cpb and other component of dhs have a number of advisors and technical assistance both in places like tapachula and other locations but also within mexico city. we visited the training center for those personnel. we visited the detention facility. i visited it particularly. they have made marked progress in, in the work that they have done, and, i think we couldn't be more pleased with the government of mexico as a partner in this. so we'll continue to look at, can we assist in biometric identification process, other types of things. i think last thing and probably most important in all of this,

would be that if those three central american, countries, honduras, el salavador, guatemala, had better safety, better security, a better educational system for people and, better hope for the people that live in those countries, they wouldn't be fleeing, making incredibly dangerous journey to the united states. we sat on the floor with a father not that long ago and his 4-year-old daughter. he said we had several murders down the street. he said, the last thing i need to do is leave my wife with one of our other children and for myself and my daughter to flee. this is in el salavador, to flee and try to get to the united states where his mother, where his mother lives, but he said, i can't raise her in that environment. if those countries are more stable, people don't want to pick up and leave and come here. >> i hope you work with the

state department because as you know, mr. chairman, and members of the committee, we added $750 million working with for the central america, northern triangles. hopefully y'all are part of that process because the more we extend our security out instead of playing defense on the one yard line but extend it to the 20-yard line the better it is. they are worth $750 million. hopefully y'all will work with the state department. thank you so much for your time and effort. >> would be helpful to have an ambassador too in mexico. >> i agree. i think roberta jacobsen should be the ambassador. it is unfair she is delayed for something has nothing to do with mexico. very unfair to mexico. >> dr. harris. >> thank you very much. thank you for being before the committee and thanks for your service. we've got your resume' here. it is pretty impressive, including of course your service over the a the office of national drug control policy i

follow up with what the chairman of the full committee asked about a little bit, which is the role of your organization now in controlling drug traffic. i think there was testimony last year that the, your department or your, you know, u.s. customs border protection, doesn't have zero tolerance policy. that in fact, people found crossing the border with marijuana or other drugs actually, there is no zero tolerance. you actually don't refer for prosecution everyone who intends to enter our country and poison our youth. so i have got to ask you, why? >> i don't actually know of any policy like that. i know that people are apprehended with drugs, whether it is small amounts, that they're carrying for some personal use or whether it is multiton or multikilo loads, all of those to my knowledge would be referred to the united states attorney and it would not be up

to customs and border protection to make a decision for the department of justice, as to whether or not prosecution would be accepted. frankly if i did find out if we did have a policy makes those decisions rather than where they belong to the department of justice, i would reverse that policy very quickly. >> but you were head of the national, office of national drug control policy. >> right. >> would you be disappointed with the department department e in in fact they set minimum amounts of marijuana to be brought into this country before they would be prosecuted? >> i would tell you -- >> that seems like would be a waste of time for your agents. you agents go, track them down, find the drug, do a great job and turn them over to the doj and doj says, turns the other way says, we're too busy. >> i said depending on united states attorneys offices along the border from texas to california the number one client for prosecutions is customs and border protection.

we keep them busy with everything possible. i think there are clearly going to be cases that they are not going to, and these are questions, that better answered by them. i think they're clearly cases given finite resources that they have, that they are not going to be able to accept for prosecution either because of prosecutorial merit or because, or because they have set some guide line. but i would tell you that we've make those referrals all the time and we're happy to make sure that they have everything. i have assigned five attorneys in our office, to be cross designated assistant united states attorneys, just to help out in those areas so that they can have additional prosecutors. if we need to assign more attorneys to do that, to help them out, that's what have to do. >> thank you very much. i was a dill disappointed back in 2009, i guess the

administration decided, i think you agreed to stop using the term, war on drugs. honestly, i think if you look at heroin epidemic we have now, exactly the result of the leadership of the country saying that we no longer have a war on drugs. just my personal opinion. rhett tore cool question. let me -- rhetorical question. let me go on to the visa waiver program. i have a question about this, because as you know part of the controversy, this decision was made to on case-by-case basis are permit waivers, business people from irand iran conducting business. . .

there would be a whole series of questions and we would have to validate through that system. but right now i don't know of a single, there is not a single pending request for even one that has been made. >> so iran's objection seems to be much ado about nothing? >> i don't know if it is merely to early in the process for some of these additional request but i do know that no request has been made. >> just one final point, and this'll be pretty brief. it has to do with integrated fixed towers contracts.

these were supposed to be important parts i think important parts of our first line of defense, and yet the first tower, desertification was delayed. now is there money in the budget for the rest of these towers? will they proceed on time? >> there is money and are proceeding on time. the border patrol was required under the contract, and rightly so, to certify that these expensive pieces of technology are actually operational and/or helpful. i think as many members of the committee no, the attempt to build a virtual wall, the sbinet come resulted in three significant investment of taxpayer dollars in some technology that did not prove to be useful to the agents on the ground that actually needed it. as i understand it, the border patrol a certify that the integrated fixed towers is a useful, helpful tool that

expands their visibility on the border. >> thank you very much. yield back. >> doctor, as you'll recall, i mentioned a pretty strong rumor on the texas border of the 200-pound rule on marijuana. i didn't get a response from the attorney general. i asked her about that. mr. young. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, welcome. nice to see. thanks for what you to go to talk a little bit about the customs and border protection's use of uas, unmanned aerial systems. i had gone down to the border last year, early last year and noticed things, uavs and aerostats. can you talk a little bit about where those are being used, how they're being used and whether being used, are you saying a drop in border activity? it seems to me like many times this can be a real deterrent by seeing these intimidating blimps

or drones up in the sky. can you just reassure us or talk about relationship between using the uass come in conjunction with your agents? is one meant to supplement the other? you're not facing a agents would use a uass, are you? can you talk about this? >> they are all designed to enhance and in my earlier statement, the fact it's still a labor-intensive job comes to requires boots on the ground. but it can be greatly enhanced with technology. i think the tactical with a tethered aerostats are particularly helpful with the camera systems that are in them. >> do you know about how many aerostats we have no? >> i think we are at five and we just put another one in the mcallen area so i think we are now moving to six aerostats. they are fairly expensive to operate because we as contractors to operate them. frankly, i do want to take a border patrol agent off the road and then have them operate the

mechanics of the tactical aerostats. i think they are helpful. i will be done in mcallen next week the 12th or 13th trip and agents down to feel that they are a definite deterrent and visible. i kind of thought that even if we had some extras without. within we ought to just put them up in the air and see how that works, kind of like when the party police car with nobody in it, see if people slow down. >> of these inflatable tanks that the use in world war ii. >> we will have to see if they pick up my idea. >> thank you for that. last year i asked you by guidance given to a cd personnel to keep administration policies in mind entities priorities supersede the law -- cbp personnel -- last month we heard testimony from an agent that undocumented immigrants are no longer given a notice to appear

order in our release without any means of tracking their whereabouts. i have serious concerns about this. i know some of my colleagues do as well. our agents being directed to ignore the law or is this coming from within their own decision-making? or are they given guidance on ignoring the law on this? >> they shouldn't be releasing anyone. the border patrol shouldn't be issuing the notices to appear without going through and without having i.c.e. on immigration and customs enforcement. so we don't need to be in debt. i think everyone is very familiar with policies in the past called catch and release, in which people were not documented, reports were not as well-written, people were not question. there is no one that is apprehended today, unless they are under the age of 14, that isn't fingerprinted and photographed, that isn't debriefed about how did you get your? was there a smuggler involved?

how much did it cost? all of that information. but we don't need and don't want and i would not stand by if the border patrol was releasing people without going through all of the formalities that are required. >> do this concern you in this border patrol agent gave this testimony before the judiciary committee on this? >> a concern i have is quite often the border patrol counsel which is the union is probably not the most knowledgeable organization about what is actually going on. i think unlike, yeah, when i have police officers in seattle they would follow the law, then there should within the law to actually do things. if they were not happy with doing that, it's kind of like if you really don't want to follow the directions that her superiors, including the president of the united states, in the commission of border protection, and a duty to look for another job.

>> distance is concerned that the law is not being enforced. last year when sales on you as you can gave a statement saying that their goals and principles and priorities should take precedence even over the law. so that's very concerning to myself and many others on this panel. edges throughout america. wondering why if it's not happening the law is not being a force. it's a very series thing. i would urge you to keep an eye on that, please. thank you. >> okay. >> are right. i think we will start a second round. first, when i do something one of my colleagues brought up. i think mr. harris. the integrated fixed towers, the reality is that the first certification of one of these powers was last friday, isn't that correct? so it's a very, very current event. >> yes.

>> and on those towers, here's the question that texas would like to know, when will your budget install towers in texas? what will use in texas if not integrated fixed towers? >> i think part of the delay with integrated fixed towers was the fact that the contract was protested, and as we know when a contract is protested it takes a long time then to overcome that. but that fixed our in arizona is up and working. we know that the additional aerostats in texas is very helpful and different locations including within texas in which that fixed power would make a difference, then i would like to move forward with that. i couldn't be more specific than happy to get back to you on that. >> well, it wouldn't be the first time that we look around and see resources go into arizona that we really needed indexes. so i think i'm required to ask

that question. >> i got the message. >> okay. we understand the department is exploring an outcome based approach to metrics that would measure the effectiveness of our border security. how is cbp working with the signature on this initiative? and how will it change the current cbp metrics, which are more input based instead of outcome based? so what does the preliminary data suggest for border security between and at ports of entry? i understand the result of different compare with existing metrics. >> the secretary anything everyone including cbp and the border patrol is frustrated with either the lack of metrics or the metrics that exist, what do they really tell you. and almost, i believe it was dr. harris, you don't know what you don't know, would be one of the questions. so the secretary brought in a number of people from the department of defense and others

that have been working pretty close with all of us to gather as much information as possible about what are the measures and what should be looked at and what all the determinations that would be most useful in things like determining the number of border patrol agents, how secure is the border, what are we missing, et cetera. it's very complex. i don't know the exact timeline, but i know that he is absolutely focused and intent on trying to have this done and out certainly before he leaves office. >> so you all were being know anything, the difference between, you know, between input and outcome bases? do you have some examples as to what the differences might be? >> i don't. the last briefing i had from the people that it can overcome defense was probably three or four months ago. so i'm not all that familiar

with where they are now. because they wanted to gather a lot of information from i.c.e. not just border patrol, but also at our ports of entry. >> do you have anything that gives us a hint? would you share it with this? >> i'll be happy to. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman i think as look back on the record of the last hearing last year, i do not believe that she said or implied that the law should not be followed. commissioner, late last year he briefed me on the results of cbp's review of ottey warned cameras, which this committee supported as a way of potentially increasing accountability for cbp personnel as well as protecting them from unfounded allegations of misconduct. the budget request includes $5 million to continue examining how body warned cameras are used

across cbp is very operational environment. while also looking at how the expanded a more efficient use of a became a technology, technologies could be beneficial. can you elaborate on how this funding will be used and how the activity will be different from the feasibility study that cbp conducted last year? >> we've tried to move beyond, the fact that one customs and border protection is a very camera rich environment now, every port of entry, certain cen checkpoints, lots of locations including all the cameras that are along the border. so we have lots of cameras and we as a lot of cameras. but expanded the cameras into areas would be particularly helpful. one is that are marked vehicles do not have dash cameras as many police departments have like los angeles and others. we want to be able to use part of that $5 million to put the scammers in those vehicles.

because we do end up in apprehensions in pursuit, et cetera, where that record would be helpful. expanding cameras at the checkpoint, the permanent checkpoints, the number would be helpful. and also on our boats. we've had to fiddle incidents can one off the coast of california and one with the british virgin islands within the last year, of fatalities involving enforcement actions. our boats are not equipped with those cameras. the difficulty that we've had with body warned cameras and our air and marine agents will be testing the as interact with people at locations. but the difficulty with the body warned cameras for our border patrol agents is that we did not find a camera that withstood the vibe that they worked in for more than three months. since we've had a number of discussions with vendors who have come forward with either ideas for ways to improve those cameras because we think would

be helpful. i spent time over coffee with a number of agency field-tested they cameras. they were very positive about it. the border patrol council, the union in this particular case has indicated support for body-worn cameras but will keep looking at the technology. >> how long do you anticipate this next phase will take and what do we anticipate that cbp will make a decision about improving and expanding these cameras, including the body-worn cameras? >> at the relatively easy to improve and expand on the cameras and all other locations that i talked about except for the agents out in the field, in the rough terrain. i would certainly make it a go of my before i leave office at the end of this year to make sure that we have developed body-worn cameras that agents can wear and rely upon. >> and what progress has been

made in addressing the major procedural and policy challenges associated with using the camera's? >> i think the most help that we've gotten has been from a non-governmental organizations who are very involved in body-worn camera issues. for state and local law enforcement. they have been a part of the discussion, over what would be the best policies. but we also know everything the city of los angeles look at a price tag just for that city a vote of over $50 million wants to make sure that, and i think you brought this up to, mr. chairman, they are huge number of costly comes to retaining information, foia requests, et cetera. all of that needs to be included in the analysis. >> when you a ride that cbp i and many others have significant concerns about allegations of improper use of force and other types of misconduct among cbp personnel.

in a short time later in 2014 you updated the cbp just the force handbook, corporat incorpy of the recommendations made by the inspector general and in the police executive research review of the cbp can't use of force cases and policy. you also announced the establishment of a use of force center of excellence. the budget request for fy '17 includes a $4.2 million increase for the center which is based on cbp's advanced training center in harpers ferry. can you elaborate on the purpose of the center, what it has accomplished to date and how the proposed funding increase would be used to? >> the center has been particularly couple into areas one is less lethal technology. there are a variety of less lethal from tasters to pepper ball launchers and on and on that can all, they can be used before having to resort to use of a firearm. and so part of the work they do

is the training and looking at that new equipment. the other is the simulators. we are in the process of purchasing 21 simulators that will be a signed throughout our field of operations from spokane, washington, to florida, where agents and officers can go through a simulation. we make our own videos based upon the environment particularly that the border patrol works in. the same time we added a variety of fencing to the border patrol training facility in artesia and new mexico so agents could practice before they ever leave training, can actually practice in the department that they're going to be operating in. so we have seen great progress in that area and we would like to make more. that's part of the request. >> have you seen the use of force decrease? >> our assault on agents over year-to-date in this fiscal year are down about i believe 25 or

30%. so assaults on agents are down. we released our use of force information, and our uses of force work and even the last you we did see a flattening of the same number of assaults on agents, we saw a reduction in use of force by agents, and part about it as a result of better policy, better training, better equipment, et cetera. thank you. >> , question, -- [inaudible] concerned about the findings issued by homeland security committee that while cbp office, office can pass on information collected at borders, the process isn't augmented or incorporated into the federal government's other databases.

i see you are requesting $48 million for intelligent staffing. i want to be sure and an everybody does that maybe you can talk more about the integration and collaboration of systems and technologies to address this. >> when i arrived at the cbp and examined each of the components including the office of intelligence, i saw that the office of intelligence was very much tactical and very much focused on particular targeting, but that means that as i described it was kind of an inch, a mile wide and an inch deep. know, vice versa. it was very much tactical, and so it was a very important that we brought in an assistant commissioner who came from the office of the director of national intelligence, and the fbi and had been at the nsc and said let's broaden our

intelligence scope and work more closely with the other intelligence agencies and feed information to our targeting center. but let's not make our intelligence unit all targeting all the time. we need all the other information. for instance, we are negotiating on precludes with nine other countries. we need a broad-based intelligence. that's where we are. that's where we are headed, relationship with intelligence community to be able to use or access databases is progressing well spent do you sense any impediments that you are facing that need to overcome that we can help with? >> we couldn't have better, you can always have, but we couldn't have better partners than director clapper, then director comey and others. i think they see the value and the importance of what cbp brings to the table on these issues. >> thank you for that. >> mr. price.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, i'd like to ask you about two distinct but related areas to push our borders outward, as we say. the first, cargo screening overseas. the second, precludes for airline passengers. first on the cargo screening. as you know, the 9/11 act required cbp to scan 100% of maritime cargo originating in foreign ports prior to landing on american shores. for a variety of reasons from cost to technological constraints to inadequate infrastructure at many harbors this requirement remains elusive. perhaps it's not ultimately possible. i think this subcommittee has recognized that there in fact in our 2016 report, we acknowledged as much. we acknowledged the expectation that the department, in light of

this, we provide to congress and aggressive alternative requirements that build on the layered security capabilities achieved to date and that could be realistically achieved within the next two years. i'm quoting. so we directed to cbp to provide a briefing within 45 days of enactment on its near-term and longer-term plans for the improvement of maritime cargo scanning at foreign ports. not so much a question as a comic. i do think you have a case to make year. there may be elements that you need to develop further. we had an early report on his former agency which was very brief and not totally adequate. so that it is a history here, but i hope you'll take this briefing very strictly. it's not yet occurred i do think the subcommittee needs to be a short that in light of this very difficult, perhaps impossible

statutory requirement that you are filling in the blanks with a risk-based screening process that we can rely on longer-term. so we put great stock in your filling out the information. >> we do. this sector has made it very clear, the importance of this. we know we have a lot of screening systems in place both overseas and here but it does not meet the requirement of the law. that's important. and also of course the direction through the law for biometric exit. that's why we've moved very aggressively since we were given a mandate in 2013 to move to a biometric accept process. we have a biographic exit program that is pretty robust, but we need biometric exit. i think the final part of this budget is the request that the office of biometric information he moved to cbp so that if you're going to hold me or the

next commissioner accountable for biometric exit, we would have the tools and the resources to actually make that happen. >> my reference is to this prior statutory requirement for screening overseas, and as i said, this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis has been cognizant of the difficulties there but at the same time we do need to be filled in as to what the short and long-term plans look like for the screening of particularly risky cargo coming from overseas. now preclearance, airline passengers. this has been in some instances a very uncontroversial process involving canada, ireland, other countries in the case of abu dhabi, not so uncontroversial. nonetheless, it seems to me it's had a very solid rationale, security rationale, rationale in terms of convenience to passengers and, in other words,

the case is pretty strong but we do need to make a case and we need to understand how the department assesses the work done so far and what kind of projections you make into the future. i wonder here agenda participant for the record but i wonder if you could briefly give us an assessment, how many places this is going on? what you think would be desirable in terms of the future reach of his preclearance effort? will cut a progress report can you give? >> so the discussion with 10 airports in the country's is continued on. it's very robust. cannot and we meeting in new york with a group from a country, seven people flying in from another country to discuss our discussions. i believe that before the end of this calendar year that we will have several signed agreements with countries for preclearance, and then i believe in 2017 preclearance operations will be operational in a couple of those locations.

for safety, security, benefit to the traveler, for cost to the taxpayer, i don't think, and certainly with the support of the congress has given on this, i don't think we can go wrong with pushing our borders out. >> abu dhabi in particular, do you have any comments on how that's worked? particularly on the security benefits of that arrangement. >> the last numbers i looked at which was several months ago, while over a thousand people who wanted to fly from abu dhabi to the united states, our recommendation to the airline was that if they arrived they would be deemed inadmissible. the airline then made a decision not to admit them. that doesn't mean just citizens from uae, but that's people who have flown through abu dhabi to that, to then continue until. so from a safety standpoint i think it makes sense, but i am very pleased that in the negotiations with the current

negotiations, all of these locations have american flag carriers that fly into and out of them. >> that's the requirement going forward. it's not true of abu dhabi at the time. that seems, that seems remarkable just on the face of it. 1000 you save? >> yes. >> do you think those thousands of people otherwise would've come to this country and be dealt with at one of our ports of entry, or is there something attracting these people to maybe try? >> we apprehend and deny admissibility every single day. they would've landed in the united states. they would've been deemed inadmissible based upon the information we had. the airline would've been required to place them on the next flight back him the next return flight. they would have been held during that, they would've been incarcerated during the period or maintained in a secure location until getting back on

that flight when we escort them back on the plane and they left the united states. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> dr. harris. >> thank you very much. let me ask a little bit about the oig report on the forward operating bases, which i'm sure you've seen. i understand and they say that your organization responded, but it seems it's pretty serious. these are pretty important operating bases. are you committed to addressing all the problems they found? >> the first problems, and the ones that were certainly most significant, involved the quality of the water and we make changes. one of the difficulty with that organization is a vast as is widely dispersed is that sometimes by the time the information gets to me it's like, what is being done and how many days has this already gone?

i made it clear that the safety and security of our personnel, whether it's where they work, is key to that. so these forward operating bases which can be quite helpful but are also quite remote need to be secure and they need to be well-maintained, and we need to work with our staff and gsa to make sure these locations are better. >> okay thank you. i appreciate that because you're right, our agents the need to secure facilities and good facilities where they are working. with regards to export enforcement, i just have a question that obviously the sanctions that prohibit use exports to iran still remain in full effect with the exception for civilian aircraft. but what steps are you doing now that there's this enhanced relationship with iran to monitor for illegal exports to make sure that we are not exporting illegally to iran and?

>> exports are any customs organization in the past, including ours, did not see the same level of scrutiny and review that certainly imports see. over the last soviets were taken a number of steps to do a much better job of looking at what is leaving -- last several years -- a program in which large numbers of exports from well-known manufacturers here in the united states may leave the country, but at the manifest of what was leaving the country would not be transmitted until it was already on a ship and already going out. so we are working with industry because we want the manifest in advance before it ever gets on a boat or ever gets the ability to lead. we also need to make sure we are working closely with the intelligence community and others on things that may be exported to a country that could be hostile to us. that they never get to that country. >> one final question here i'm just not sure this is your

jurisdiction, but the homeless pretty sector is supposed to deny entry to the us of any iranian citizen seeking to enter the u.s. to study in the field of nuclear engineering. makes great sense. we don't need to train our enemies. under the jcpoa a lot disturbing in effect for the next eight years. my concern is andy kay maybe he acknowledged of how, but look, i have five children, for have been to college. all four have change their majors in college. someone can come into i'm not going to study nuclear engineering, go to school in fact take nuclear engineering courses. to have a safeguard to make sure that iranians don't come here and literally gain access to what i believe is the best education in the world, technical education in the world, to go back and build weapons against us? how do we safeguard against the? >> it isn't in my speech that is probably i.c.e. i imagine? >> we will be happy to get with you or your staff spirit i would

appreciate that. that's of some concern to me because people can come your. we don't know their intention. they will fill out a form that says they want to be a history major and independent and injured in school learning things that will come back to bite us. thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, thank you so much. to questions. dealing with trade. where are we on the full 2000 cbp officers? i know at one time we were delayed because of breach of security background. what are we without? and then tell us a little bit about the agricultural specialist staffing issue. and again, you know my history about loretto being the largest in the valley, a lot of agriculture. tell us where we are on those two issues. >> one, i would be remiss if i

didn't thank you for speaking to our personnel when they have their large personnel meetings and talking to them about professionalism and their responsibilities and on and on. it means a great deal when a member of congress spends time with them. so that's very helpful. we are about 700 customs and border protection agents below what the 2000 that we would've hired. remember, we've had a lot of attrition. in the center we had the highest number ever of customs and border protection agents on board -- in december. we are making progress within. that's particularly helpful. we also did that ever have a staffing program or a workload analysis for our agriculture specialist. and quite frankly after 2003 and the fact we were put together as a result of that, combining and the department of homeland security, it was all security all the time and our agricultural specialist who are the most highly educated by the

way of our workforce, did not receive in my estimation as much support as needed. when you think about the things that could harm this country from pass and diseases and agriculture, we've worked pretty hard to try and prove and increase ensure the recognition for the important work that they do. but this staffing model will be helpful. >> second question has to do with a letter that governor abbott and myself wrote to the secretary. and i see the response and i told the secretary respectfully disagree, especially i think that chairman said a while ago that you all are 12 or so below the goal for air interdiction officers come is that correct? >> this. >> so there's eight aircrew vacancies and we provided funding, full funding to the national guard, and again i

disagree with the way the secretary had looked at, he does a great about appreciated, but he was looking at one month from december to january would actually look at the longer one, it's actually 171% increase, 102% on families. but regardless of all that, but if we are short, we have vacancies, the national guard got funded. i would ask you all with all due respect to the letter i got from the secretary, i would ask you all to look at that again one more time because, mr. chairman, i am going to request some language, especially if we find it, that we put that back in. especially if your numbers are correct that they have been confirmed at 12% unethical of air interdiction but i'll do what it is provide the men and women to support, air support. i can understand it if we didn't

provide the funding blame congress for this award to provide the funded. you don't have to give the edge. i would just ask you to consider our request again. >> sure. and we would never blame congress. >> my last question again, commissioner, thank you for all. i wish the best for the end of this year come and get i really appreciate your dedication, and the men and women that serve on one with you. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> commissioner, i want to join my friend from texas and thank you for your hard work. please convey our appreciation and thanks to all the members of the u.s. customs and border protection agency. they do a tough job in a tough environment. and as we talked in question, we all know because all of us have been there, and those who have and are going to go, because they need to know the kind of rough environment that you all have to work and.

we hope god blesses each and every one of you. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> a select interest if you look at bio ethical issues surrounding fetal tissue transplant research. secretary donovan of georgetown university's medical center for clinical bioethics will be among those testifying. watch live coverage at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. in the afternoon jason furman who heads the white house council of economic advisers will outline president obama's economic plan to congress. he will be at the joint economic committee live at 2:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. >> senate minority leader harry reid and judiciary committee ranking member patrick leahy spoke to reporters following a

meeting with president obama and senate republican leaders about the vacant supreme court seat. here is what they said. >> i thought you'd all be interested. you have two eyes. pat was born with one eye he can't see out of and, of course, you know -- will keep both of our eyes so we a good. in the meantime. we just completed a meeting with the president, senator grassley and mitch mcconnell, and the point i'd like to make here is they were willing to meet with the president. looks like they will lease meet with the presidents nominate which we can very quickly but they were adamant. they said no, we are not going to do. this at all. we are going to do what's never been done before. definition of the country has anything like this happened where they will not meet with a person. they simply won't hold hearings and they won't nominate. we are going to continue beating

the drums. all think it is so filled their constitutional duty and do their job. at this stage that decided not to do that. they think they will wait to see what president trump will do i guess as far as the nomination. >> this is the fifth time i've been invited down to the white house to talk about supreme court nominees, with republican presidents and democratic presidents. every president i been here, i came at the time of president ford could realize the constitution makes it very clear the president shall nominate, and then the senate shall offer advice and consent. the president is going to fulfill his constitutional duty. the senate is supposed to fulfill theirs. have a hearing, vote up or down. don't pretend it doesn't happen.

we have done it a dozen times in presidential election years. they've had nominations. having a divided supreme court which will be doing it for almost two years makes no sense at all. it politicizes the courts. i've argued a lot of cases in trial courts and appellate courts come you always go into assuming you will be treated alike and its outsider politics when you in there. we are sending a signal to our country into the world that it's a political institution. it's not supposed to be. they shouldn't be. i think everybody should take a deep breath and say okay, step back and see what the president, who he or she is nominated by the president and then have a hearing, follow regulatory. lord knows we have enough time

to do that. >> we will take some questions. >> how long did the session lasts because we killed a lot of time talking basketball and other stuff in a very long. >> dedicate to a point where names were discussed in particular? >> one thing the president made very clear, if the iranians he was usually considered them. he said over and over again. that's been done in the past. senator biden talked about coming to a meeting with one president, republican president and would over a list of things. he will be okay, this'll probably be okay, but the president made it very clear. he is willing to talk to them about any nomination they think would be appropriate. >> didn't offer any? >> they brought up no names spent what, if any, leverage do think you have to make this happen? >> we have a constitution that says that they are obligated to hold hearings. they are obligated to vote. that's what it says. and more importantly when they

swore the oath each time they become a senator, again, was the first time, they swear to uphold the constitution. they are not doing it. they are walking away from it. >> will democrats in the senate do anything to force them or pressure them to do their constitutional duty to? >> we are not going to play the game of destruction. we are going to do our jobs the way we are supposed to. >> what do you think would happen if donald trump -- [inaudible] >> i think the republican party is changing before our eyes. donald trump, ted cruz, marco rubio, they are all on the same kettle. look at what comes they are all agreeing with trump in one way or another. we are seeing before our eyes and the republican party. [inaudible] >> well as i said my statement to you guys, i guess they want to wait until president trump

decides who he wants to be on the supreme court. >> one thing you've got remember. every one of these senators raised a hand when they were sworn in and said to uphold the constitution so help me god. you can't just stand there and say what we will not uphold the constitution. you have taken a solemn oath before god to uphold the constitution. let's just do it. vote up or vote down. stop trying to politicize the supreme court. do your jobs spirit we have a caucus. >> did a senator grassley have a chance speak was everybody had a chance and there wasn't much said in a meeting other than their adamant of what -- what? spent that the vice president talk about his 1992 speech to? >> heeded. he did as i did on the floor this plan. iberville speak the if you look at how he concluded his speech

he said no nomination should be held up. >> you can see the rest of this on our website at c-span.org. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to continue her on the heroin and drug abuse bill. the bill would authorize funding for grants for education, prevention and treatment of heroin and prescription drugs. live senate coverage it on c-span2. will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, shower our senators with your marvelous grace this day and always. make them sufficient for these grand and challenging times. teach them to make the most of their time, for the night comes

when no one can work. lord, refresh them with your might, so that they will face vicissitudes with equanimity of temperament and an absolute trust in the power of your providence. keep a protective eye on them so that they may dwell in safety. today, shine the light of your presence upon us all, filling us with your joy. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the current senate democratic leader once stated that -- quote -- "nowhere in the constitution does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote." the incoming senate democratic leader, the one we'll have next year, should not even wait until the final year of the last president's term to declare that the senate should not confirm a supreme court nominee except in

extraordinary circumstances. and we all know what vice president biden said when he chaired the judiciary committee. here's what he said: "it would be our pragmatic conclusion" he said "that once a political season is underway -- and it is -- action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." that's the essence, mr. president, of the biden rule. yesterday the chairman of the judiciary committee and i personally reiterated to president obama that we will observe the biden rule. the american people deserve to be heard on this matter. that's the fairest and most reasonable approach today. voters have already begun to choose the next president who in turn will nominate the next supreme court justice. it's an important decision. justice scalia himself reminded us that setting aside one's personal views is one of the primary qualifications for a judge. his aim was to follow the

constitution wherever it took him, even if he disagreed politically with the outcome. we saw that when he sided with the constitutional right of protesters to burn the american flag. if you're going to be a good and faithful judge, he said, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. i think americans agree that judges should be fair, impartial arbiters who apply the law and the constitution equally to all and as actually written, not as a wish it were. i think most americans agree that a judge should be committed to an evenhanded interpretation of the law and the constitution so everyone who walks into a courtroom knows he or she will with a fair shake. but there's another view of the role of a judge under the view promoted by the current president, the so called empathy standard, judges prioritize their political ideology above

the law. the problem of that approach to judging is that empathy is only good in the courtroom if you're lucky enough to be the person the judge actually has empathy for. it's not so good if you're the other guy. this is something the american people should decide. president obama still has every right to nominate someone on his way out the door. the senate also has every right to withhold its consent. that's what the biden rule reminds us this election year. we will appropriately revisit the matter after americans select their new president. now this is not the only issue we discussed down at the white house yesterday. we also had a constructive discussion about other legislative issues like the prescription opioid and heroin epidemics sweeping our country and the important bill we'll continue to consider today to help address it. the comprehensive addiction and

recovery act or cara is bipartisan legislation that targets this crisis at every level. the bill has a host of supporters including 42 bipartisan cosponsors and more than 130 groups dedicated to combatting the epidemic. and while this is an important authorization bill, i would also note that congress has already appropriated $400 million to opioid-specific programs already. all 400 million of those funds still remain available to be spent today. that's right, mr. president, these funds are still available and we'll have more opportunities to address funding through the appropriations process later this spring. michael bottecelli, the director of national control policy came to congress a few years ago and thanked congress for including funding in the spending bill saying we appreciate that congress provided more than $400

million in the fiscal 2016 appropriations act, specifically to address the opioid epidemic, an increase of more than $100 million from the previous year. botticelli went on to say there's clear evidence that a comprehensive response like that of cara is tremendously important. he said that the provisions in cara are critically important to make headway in terms of this epidemic. let's now -- let's not allow this issue to get tangled up in politics. it's really too important to each of our states. let's do our part today to help those in recovery take their lives back. let's help keep families together and kids safer, to help prevent more americans from suffering at the hands of addiction. let's put politics aside and continue to work to pass the comprehensive addiction and recovery act which would be an important step forward in the fight against our national

opioid and heroin crisis. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: people that watch us on television should understand that everything we do is not dower and kind of frowny. there are times when we are away from the cameras, we get along well and have a good time. there's no better example of that than this morning. every day -- i'm sorry -- every week at 8:00 in the morning on wednesday we meet downstairs in the senate prayer breakfast. i go there as often as i can, and they're really stimulating and really i'm glad i go every time i do go.

but today was especially good because al franken, the junior senator from minnesota, was there making the presentation. and even though there was an opening prayer and a closing prayer and some talk in between that, his presentation was terrific. and of course we all know al franken. a lot of it was funny. so i want everyone watching this this morning to know that we're not always -- i use the word dour. there are times when we smile and have a good times. the presiding officer, everyone knows that the presiding officer and i have a total agreement in policy, but i so admire the presiding officer. without reservation, i can say

we are friends. not just political friends, but we're friends. a year ago when i was injured, because he's an ophthalmologist, he reached out to me and gave me his advice and mostly his concern, for which i'm grateful. and i think if we stopped and looked around the, at each other, we would find such relationships like the presiding officer and the senior senator from nevada, and i appreciate that. mr. president, now we have a new rule called the biden rule, which i guess it was invented this morning. what happens when my friend the republican leader, as he did yesterday, talks about what senator biden said, he never completes the presentation senator biden made. senator biden did not say there wouldn't be any nominations. here's what he said in ending

his presentation. at the end of the speech in 1992, senator biden said compromise is the responsible course both for the white house and for the senate. if the senate consults and are cooperates with the senate or moderates its selection, then this nomination may enjoy my support as did justice kennedy and souter. that's what this is all about. senator biden, vice president biden never said there wouldn't be any nominations approved, and that was evident in the oval office yesterday. vice president biden told the story of a republican president called him down. he was chairman of the judiciary committee. and said, okay, we're having some problems here. i got ten names on a piece of paper. i want you to look at it and just give me your rough

estimate. which of these do you think would work? these are people that a republican president presented to the democratic chair of the judiciary committee saying give me your impression of these people. he went on yes, yes, yes, no. he had ten names. and that's the same thing that happened yesterday in the white house. president obama said do you have any names for me? give them to me. i'll be happy to take a look at them. so, mr. president, there is no biden rule unless the biden rule is we'll continue doing what we've always done here in the senate. and what is that? we approve, in any presidential election year. we've never not -- double negative. in a presidential election year we always take care of a nominee. welch -- we've never not in the

history of this country not done that until now. the other thing, mr. president, is we keep talking about a lot of political things, but we have an obligation based on the constitution of the united states to do something about these nominations we get from the president. we have a constitutional duty to do our jobs, and that duty is to give advice and consent to the president when he sends a nomination up here, which we'll have in a matter of a week or so. and we do it quickly. we don't spend months and months doing this, mr. president. republicans' unprecedented call to block any nominee is more of obstruction we've had here too often. this has never ever been done before. and for my friend the republican

leader to talk about statements i made and the senior senator from new york made, of course we made statements. it didn't affect what we did around here. people listened and it slowed down what president bush was going to do. but the fact is president bush did what he wanted, and he and the process was able to present nominations to us, and we looked them over. and now with the new standard, we're not going to meet with whoever this person is. we don't know who it is but we're not going to meet with him. we're not going to hold hearings and we're not going to vote. and that's wrong. mr. president, here is something that appeared in "the washington post" headlined "trump is the g.o.p.'s frankenstein monster." this was the headline in "the washington post" opinion piece offered by robert kagan former

official of the reagan state department now a senior fellow at the brookings institute. it's true donald trump is the republican party's frankenstein. republicans spent the last eight years stoking fires of resentment and hatred building trump piece by piece. today the republican establishment acts like it's surprised by donald trump and his victories around the country. they feign outrage that a demagogue spewing vile is somehow winning in a party that has spent years telling immigrants they're not welcome in america. they act surprised that republican voters are flocking to their candidate, even as republican leaders continue to support a man who refuses to distance himself from the ku klux klan. they express shock and outrage that republican voters cheer trump's school yard taunts, even

as they trounce the most common courtesy extended to every president, even as they deny a fair hearing to the president's supreme court nominee for the first time ever. first time in history. republicans shouldn't be surprised. they spent eight years laying the groundwork for the rise of donald trump. the reality is that republican leaders are reaping what they have sown. as mr. kagan said in "the washington post" opinion piece yesterday, and i quote -- "the party's own political crimes are being punished in a bit of justice fit for greek tragedy." close quote. seven years ago, the republican leaders of the party decided that president obama was the illegitimate president. they decided his presidency was unworthy of their basic respect and good-faith efforts. congressional republicans decided that whatever policies this president proposed, they would reflexively oppose them, regardless of the merits.

instead, congressional republicans have only one objective -- to keep president obama from being re-elected. in order to do that, the republican leader and its party refused to engage the president or democrats on policy. no matter how dire the crisis for the american people, republican leaders decided it was more important to deny president obama an achievement than help people in need. mr. president, can we have order in the senate, please? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order, please. mr. reid: it's very difficult to make a presentation when we have a deal going on across the way. mr. president, no matter how dire the crisis for the american people, republican leaders decided, i repeat, it was more important to deny president obama an achievement than to help people in need. think about the monumental legislation the republicans refuse to even engage in, let

alone work on. the american recovery investment act, known as the stimulus. when our economy was in a nose dive, in a nose dive, remember, when obama was elected, that month he was elected, the country lost 800,000 jobs in one month. we were in the throes of the great recession, and yet it took a herculean effort to get a mere three republicans to work with us on that legislation. very important. they were strong, they were courageous. specter, collins and snowe. but the republican leadership made it clear they didn't want their senators working with president obama on the stimulus. well, we got it done. health care. before obamacare, there were nearly 50 million americans with no health insurance. since then, almost 20 million more americans have gained health coverage. today, if you have a preexisting

disability, you get -- you are covered with insurance. today the rate of no insurance is below 10%. this has all inspired congressional republicans who would not work with democrats despite our best efforts, refused to do anything to engage in any way. when the debate over health care started, three republicans -- snowe, grassley and enzi, members of the very important finance committee -- acted interested in fixing our nation's health care system, but republican leadership -- we would say twisted their arms, convinced them, whatever words we want to use to get them in line with the republican leader's wishes and abandon any hope of bipartisanship on the issue. so there was none. senator snowe voted for the bill in the finance committee but the republican leadership even turned her to vote no on the senate floor, and the senior

senator from iowa went back to iowa and started talking about death panels. doesn't that sound like something donald trump would do? wall street and the dodd-frank legislation. wall street crashed. i can remember being in the white house with the republican secretary of the treasury, wonderful man, secretary paulson, was on his knees begging nancy pelosi to work with him. the country was in a deep -- in deep trouble. democrats controlled the body. we had a republican president. and we worked with the republican president. in the shadow, republicans would not work with us to rein in the big banks and financial institutions. they had been warned by the republican administration and only one republican voted for that bill, only one. time and time again,

congressional republicans went to the extreme to block any positive legislation to improve our nation. the tactics used to obstruct the president were unprecedented. in effect, the republican leader told the president that none of his policies would get a fair hearing from the republicans, and that's basically true. republicans denied the office of the president the respect it deserves. their shoddy and disrespectful treatment became the norm. in six years, the republican leader launched more than 500,000 -- i'm sorry. i'm sorry. that is a little high. in six years, the republican leader launched more than 500 filibusters. now, during the same six-year period, lyndon johnson in six years had to overcome two filibusters. 500-2. this is far more than anyone ever imagined could happen in this great body. and actions speak louder than words. automatically filibustering the

president's policies for years on end sends a clear and simple message. republicans think that this president's proposals are illegitimate, but instead of working for the american people, republicans decided that making the extreme right wing happy was more important. republicans have blocked legislation to prevent criminals and suspected terrorists from buying guns. even background checks. republicans bought commonsense campaign finance reform. we had 59 votes to allow some disclosure of all this, these huge amounts of money. not a single republican voted with us. not a single republican. republicans voted to deport dreamers. republicans blocked an increase in the minimum wage. republicans blocked equal pay for women. republicans blocked efforts to do something about student loan debt. now republicans are blocking a nominee to the supreme court before that person's even been nominated. this is just a short list of what they have blocked.

from this rhetoric to their actions, the republicans have set the trump standard. the republican party has long used islam to fearmonger. now donald trump is doing the same thing. the republican party has spent years railing against latinos and immigrants, trying to incite fear. congressman steve king called undocumented immigrants drug dealers. he described their bodies in a very negative, ugly way. now donald trump is saying the same thing. donald trump is the ultimate fulfillment of the republican party's legacy of obstruction and resentment. but to be frank, it's not only trump. senator cruz, senator rubio and ben carson are saying basically the same thing. maybe a little more subtle, but they're saying the same thing. after all, this is the same party, the republican party, that yesterday saw nine of its

members vote against naming a post office against the world-famous poet and civil rights activist maya angelou. hard to believe. and even as the establishment condemns the things donald trump says and does, the republican leadership is still supporting it. the speaker of the house yesterday affirmed that he will vote for donald trump if he is the republican nominee for president. the senate republican leader has not said he won't support donald trump if he is the nominee, publicly at least. republicans are supporting a man who refused to denounce the k.k.k., a man who continues to denigrate immigrants, muslims and the disabled. donald trump is the standard-bearer for the republican party. republicans create him by spending seven years appealing to some of the darkest forces in america. now it's up to the republicans to try and undo what they have done by denouncing donald trump. it's time for the republicans to stop the frankenstein they created. "trump is the g.o.p.'s frankenstein monster."

if republicans fail to stop donald trump, it will tear the party apart even more than it is now. will the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the motion to proceed to s. 524 is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 369, s. 524, a bill to authorize the attorney general to award grants to address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the committee-reported substitute is withdrawn. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i call up the substitute amendment number 3378. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, for himself

and others proposes an amendment number 3378. mr. grassley: i ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i call up the feinstein-grassley amendment number 3362. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, for mrs. feinstein and mr. grassley proposes an amendment numbered 3362 to amendment numbered 3378. mr. grassley: mr. president, i'm pleased that we're considering the bill before us as entitled comprehensive addiction and recovery act, acronym coir, and that we're here on the floor -- acronym cara, and that we're here on the floor discussing this very important issue. since i spoke about the bill earlier this week, i'm going to not have more opening remarks at this point.

i look forward to a bipartisan process where we're able to consider any amendments and move this bill forward. at this point, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: