>> congressman, it's not. it's more nuanced than that. we will never go away with our core mission of working up the chain of the cartel in mexico. the bridges pilot distribution affecting the communities in the cartel flooding the country with a heroine, so did absolutely is not one of the other. it's a comprehensive approach. >> is there a greater emphasis though on the distribution side of things now? >> i would not say greater emphasis. it's a shift of focus so we can do everything we can to get the violent distribution cells under control and get communities back to communities. >> is it fair to say from your assessment that are interdiction efforts with the cartel has failed or at least not been as successful as we had hoped to? >> i would not characterize it as failure. interdiction is one part of it, but we are focused on going after that actual individuals selling the powder that are pushing it in the infrastructure and money.

those are the things we are focused on. interdiction is one piece. >> sounds like you are just saying the emphasis will be on distribution. >> i don't believe it would just be on the distribution. >> i did not say just, emphasis. >> there will be emphasis on the distribution and also the supply-side. >> you mentioned a while ago and i shake my head with all of this because we have been in this war on drugs forever and it's getting worse. we are not making any headway with this. you mentioned a while ago that we have a great relationship with the mexican government and that that relationship, the reality is heroine is coming across the border now than it ever has. what it-- what good is a great relationship if we are not addressing the problem? at some point this thing is getting worse and worse and worse and we are throwing more and more money to its all the time.

frankly, it does not appear to me as though anything is happening to stop the problem that would go to the point of which you said a while ago that we are addressing this aggressively. >> congressmen, as someone who served 20 years and seen sacrifices of the brave men and women of the dea in dangerous situations in the country and the foreign arena we are doing everything we can to deal with a very very difficult and consultative problem. we are working to reduce this and we also have to go to the organizations of flooding our country. so, the war on drugs is not necessarily a phrase we would use. we do criminal investigations into sophisticated cartels-- >> i take my hat off to those agents in the field and i'm not belittling them in anyway, but pressed to come in here and try to get it picture that we are aggressively dealing with a problem that in reality is getting worse and worse is putting forth a false image. >> i have to disagree.

>> you can disagree all you want, the fact is the problem is getting worse and you yourself has admitted that. >> i don't disagree that it's a difficult problem and there are parts that are getting worse, but i'm not painting a picture that is inaccurate when i say we are aggressively going-- doing every thing we can with a tremendous sacrifice. >> hemi- criminals have been arrested and prosecuted under dea's rolling thunder program? >> i cannot give you the number of arrests, but there are 440 investigations in 125 cities. >> you don't know how many arrests? >> i would have to get back with your. >> please get back with me. mr. chairman, thank you and i see my time has expired. >> the gentleman from california , you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i appreciate the panel. i think all-- all of us have

stories about constituents who have been affected by this and the frustration of some of my colleagues and our inability as a country to deal with a drug problem no matter what we have tried. i would like to ask questions on the opiate side. i have one constituent who came to me and made me aware of her personal situation where her son was going to school at the university of arizona and drove to los angeles with other students to go to a doctor in los angeles and overdosed. this doctor was recently convicted, multiple convictions in los angeles and another constituent went to a baskin-robbins on a sunday afternoon and one of his two kids were killed right in front of him when a woman who had been abusing opiates and drinking came across, so all of us have those stories, unfortunately. one thing we are able to do in california and mr. lou and i were part of this in the legislature was update our prescription monitoring system, so my question is around electronic health records where

i would talk to doctors as a electronic health records are around the corner. doctor shopping will be a thing of the past and we worked with the attorney general in california and that process in effect now, but we are waiting to see how effective that is, so mr. botticelli, maybe you could tell us and one of the frustrating thing is is when you have this patchwork of different states doing different things it seems to me it would be fairly efficient for the federal government to provide that infrastructure for a nationwide electronic monitoring system, so that the department of justice in all 50 states and the federal department of justice would have red flags to see if a doctor like the doctor in los angeles is abusing his or her privileges or if a client is doctor shopping. mr. botticelli. >> prescription drug monitoring programs have been part of our antecedents and to your point we see tremendous amount of success. we actually looked at-- when we started we had only 20 states with affected prescription drug

monitoring program and now, we have 49 states to do that. we thought it was more prudent because we had summary states that already had existing programs to really look at state level, but to your point what we are try to focus on next is interstate that she read so that states can talk to one another and through electronic health records because that is the next phase. we want to be responsive and look at how do we get timely information to them by supporting that so we have been working with hhs and others in this is a important priority for governor's. we have been talking to the governors association, but this had been one of more effective tools we have seen, but we also need physicians to use them, so part of this is again i think we are very interested in states that have passed on only mandatory education, but like massachusetts just did, checking prescription drug monitoring program, not only at first

dispensing, but at every dispensing. >> so it's mandatory? >> so they are only as good is when people use them. >> mr. milione, maybe you can talk about this. we have a closed system where there is still a problem, so there is a financial aspect and for them if they were able to use electronic records both for the cost and efficient use of the system, but also to protect clients from being either overprescribed or some clients take advantage of the system. how far away are we from having a strong electronic monitoring system to do both? >> i think we see in some states already great progress. in 2012 we had the opportunity to issue grants for the enhancement of prescription drug monitoring programs that focus on interoperability with hr as well as interstate interoperability and in those grants during the period of the

grant we got six out of nine states that were able to achieve the level of interoperability and post- grant we have two more states who are online with their mo you so they should be will to start exchanging information with 30 hr very soon and so out of a relatively small investment partnering with cdc and others were able to get eight out of nine states to achieve that level of interoperability scenic with the statistics that come to mind, but the us has about 5% of the worlds population, but we use over 80% of opiates. how much of that this is criminal aspect, mr. botticelli? >> i would say very little. again, i think this has been a concerted effort by the heart of us-- pharmaceutical to look at falsely promoting those medications. in 2013, we prescribed enough prescription pain medication to give every adult american about pain pills and i think that's why the cdc guidelines become

important of the looking at not having opioid therapy is a first line of defense for chronic pain and really supporting when you do start with opioids for some people who do need them, starting with the smallest-- lois dosage and smallest possible amount because i really do believe that we have made progress in many areas, but not enough progress in really implementing safe opioid prescribing behavior. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> recognize mr. carter from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i think all of you for being here. i have been in and out, i apologize. ipad three committee meetings at one time, but i want to associate myself with all the comments made about marijuana being a gateway drug and leading to drug abuse. i could not fill more adamantly about that, so i want to make sure everyone understands that and for those of you that don't know i am a pharmacist-- not

practicing anymore, the only pharmacist in congress and i have over 35 years experience in a lot of experience with opioids as a dispenser. i am blessed i have never taken any drugs and never had-- i have human. i have weaknesses, but that is not one of them and i feel very strongly about that. i want to start with you, mr. milione. this is very uncomfortable, but i will tell you almost a year ago a little over a year ago in fact, in tampa a judge ruled against the actions of the dea when he rated a compounding pharmacy, destroyed the medication i completely shut down the pharmacy without real cause. this was west chase pharmacy and floor-- or to. are you familiar with that situation? >> i am not. >> you need to be because this is not a shining example you want to point towards. this is an example where one of your supervisors that you oversee conducted a raid and at the time had no experience in the investigation, had not read

the dea handbook yet rated a compounding pharmacy with tactical gear and guns, shut down the business, seized hundreds of thousands of dollars of medicine and improperly stored them therefore rendering them useless all because the dea misinterpreted and failed to follow their own laws. this is as the judge said preposterous. this is not to be accepted. i support the dea. i don't like anyone in healthcare who is not practicing by the best of standards. we have got bad pharmacies out there. we have bad pharmacist's. we got bad doctors. mr. botticelli, there are bad doctors. you cannot paint with a bad brush. there are bad actors in every profession, but this kind of action, this is totally unacceptable, especially when you have someone come into your pharmacy bearing guns. that is unacceptable, so i hope you will look at that west chase

pharmacy and i hope you research that managed and that. i went to ask you, dr. wen, especially, we have talked about opioids being used as the entry-level drug for pain control. one of the problems that i see here and, mr. botticelli, you and i have worked together before and you know i have sponsored legislation in georgia state senate for the georgia-- one of the problems i see is with the fda taking a lot of the products off the market. now, specifically want to talk about propoxyphene. it was on the market for years and years and i can imagine how much i dispensing my career and i will tell you when they took it off, what did you ask it led people to opioids because that's the only choice doctors had. your ibuprofen and see to medicine that's really to start. is a practicing pharmacist i can tell you you try to get a patient to take something

available without a prescription and you won't be able to convince them it will work. you have to have a prescription for it. that's just the latest. no, it's not right, but i will try as hard as i can and i cannot convince them of that. just like the propoxyphene, don't give me that white one. only the people and works. that's what you're dealing with, but one of the problems has been the fda taking and i know that it had its problems. i am not trying to question that, but when i am trying to point out is that we need more entry-level drugs, something in between them opioids and ibuprofen and acetaminophen. that would be better. the cdc guidelines that come out for the prescribing guidelines for doctors, i think that is very very helpful and it needs to be enforced more. it needs to have some kind of teeth. i'm running out of time because i want to get into so many things. another problem is mail order pharmacy sending these gigantic containers of opioids to the

doorsteps of people, leaving them on the doorsteps for them to be, who knows what will happen to them. you get a 90 day supply and have people bring in the drugs-- drug stores all the time with giant containers of opioids. that it needs to be suppressed, mr. milione. the dea needs to do something about that. it's ridiculous and something we need to address. the last thing i want to talk about his 21st century cures. i am a big proponent of 21st century cures that they get some of the best legislation we have passed since i've been in congress. i voted for it. however, it is very dangerous and i think it needs to be looked at. you have a relationship between pharmacies and patients between doctors and patients and when you get into a locking provision it will be difficult because you need pharmacist. you need pharmacist to produce the msn help us to curb this

problem because it is-- let me tell you i have seen it ruined families, ruin lives their guy seen it ruined careers and it is worse than can even be amended-- imagined at this point. i know i have gone over and i apologize. thank you. >> the gentleman from it-- virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will say, mr. mike and i had a series of hearings with the previous congress on us drug policy that included marijuana and it forced me to re-examine some things i thought i do or believed about our drug policy with respect to marijuana the, what is disturbing to be is if there is a gateway drug to heroin, it's opiate prescription drugs, addiction.

far more than marijuana. that's why this hearing is so timely. it's affecting every community. every community we represent in this body. it's not a rural phenomenon or urban phenomenon or suburb phenomenon. well, let me ask you, mr. botticelli, how did we get to this point? i mean, i don't want any doctor to leave a patient in pain. serious pain, you know, is a terrible affliction. first, you do no harm, but how do we draw that line between pain management and it just unbelievable avalanche of the

prescriptions for opioids that has now led to an epidemic of addiction in america with presumably the best of intention originally? >> i agree. i think when you look at the roots of this epidemic in one of the significant drivers yes, there are other issues and it's really about overprescribing of these addictive pain medications that we have. >> how did we get there? doctors aren't stupid people. >> i think that doctors were given a significant amount of misinformation from pharmaceutical companies and even from the medical profession themselves that these were not addictive medications, so that was really the start of this, that despite evidence there was this full-court press to basically educate physicians and is saying these medications were not very addictive. at the same time we had, which i think was a very noble and should be a noble is that we

have to do a better job at pain treatment in the united states and there are a lot of people who have a significant pain and we need it, so in terms of really full-court press to treat pain. the va even talked about pain, and little education on the part of these prescribers about how addictive these substances were, about how to identify people. so, physicians in the united states get very little training on appropriate prey-- pain prescribing and i think there was a study that showed veterinary and actually get more training on pain prescribing and physicians get little too known training on substance abuse issues, so i think it was this kind of mixture of a whole set of factors that really drove addiction and overdose in the united states and i think of late we now have a compounded i heroin and that no availability. >> dr. wen, what is effective treatment and how-- i mean, what

is the system for recognizing, hey, someone has a problem and we need to get the treatment? what is treatment in trying to turn this around early before it moves on to say heroin or something worse? >> medicine is an arts and not completely a science because even something like pain is objective. what is 10 out of 10 pain to you is not the same for some one else and that's why doctors need discretion about how to treat in -- each individual patient based on their symptoms and who they are also recognizing it's not just about medications. we also have to do physical therapy and counseling and education that sometimes pain is okay. we don't have to treat everything with the pill, but we very much agree with with increase in the use of pdm piece recognizing that some are very cumbersome to use and if i have

seen 40 missions in eight hours i can't be spending an hour of that time figuring out how to get into every patient's pdm p. >> we are running out of time, so what do you recommend to the baltimore health department? >> we recommend judicious use of pain medication so we are not-- >> i get that. i'm talking about treatment. we got a problem. what we learned? look, we are policymakers appear and we want to solve a problem. we get that part, but if we are to the point where we have an addictive problem, but we are trying to prevent that person from going onto the hero hero in part, what works? in your experience, what works by way of intervention? >> one thing, recognizing addiction is a disease and therefore we have to get people into addiction treatment, which is medication treatment, five sup-- psychosocial counseling and wraparound services. 1 dollar invested in treatment

saves $12 for society and that is something we should invest in >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for the hearings. they were quite informative. >> we were the only once in congress and got criticized for them, but we went through government operations and then years ago with the ranking member here, so thank you again. the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i would be remiss if i did not mention next week in atlanta we are having a national prescription drug abuse and heroine summit. i hope that you will be there. i hope my colleagues will be there. this is an opportunity to learn more about prescription drug abuse. it's a great great summit and i encourage everyone to attend. thank you to the gentleman for yielding. >> anytime. okay.

now, i have a question. one of the things that bothers me is the legal prescription of opiates. i have had two minor health things in my life in the last two years. both times medical professionals were willing to get out opiates like i believe a months worth of opiates for something that had no business under any circumstances prescribing opiates than they would have five years ago. i guess i will start with mr. botticelli, but anyone else can chime in. what can we do to stop in these basic things, i would say who they were, but i don't want to embarrass the medical professionals. one of the things in my mind is saying we will not reimburse for medicaid. we won't reimburse for medicare reimburse if you are, you know, anything else the federal government is kicking in for these sort of problems, no matter how much claim the-- pain you claim you have.

or we could perhaps say even for cms, say we are just not going to reimburse across the board if and if we are ever going to reimburse it for like three days none of this month prescription stuff. is that something that could be done? i don't know if we can get the medical professionals a lot of wiggle room because they have shown in the past they abuse that wiggle room. >> i think there are a number things to do. i think there is opportunity to work with not only cms but private insurance as well with that-- >> why don't we do it? >> cms actually sent out a letter to state medicaid directors this summer to look at putting in place prescribing protocols around the and i also think we really need to continue to focus on mandatory prescriber education. i think i'm not a big fan of government mandates around that, but i think again, we really need to educate the medical profession about safe and effective opioid prescribing.

>> i don't mean to cut you off, but all you need is common sense if we had that many people in the medical field lacking that compensates-- something we have a bigger problem is that i don't think it's a matter of common sense-- since. i think they were given misinformation on the lack of addictive properties of these drugs and it was a really full court press more appropriately treating pain with prescribing community that gets little to no training on appropriate pain subscribing. >> 90% of the people-- this is all screwed up and i can't believe medical professionals the training, but okay if you say they need training. i want to come around the penalty thing on, mr. milione. ..possible.

the problem i have is it is not a federal issue that i assume we do arrest people, who possess heroin at least enough that you can assume they are dealing a bad drug. do we arrest people for that? if we do what is the recommended sentence? >> congressman, the dea and federal level, we are not focused on users -- >> not saying sole possession. if you get someone with enough heroin, not enough that you know it is not for personal consumption, what do you do with that person? >> can't give it a quick answer, with federal prosecutors or state prosecutors, look at the conduct and ultimately a judge decides that will be based on

the guidance of the judge yet, that is the clearest answer, not a clear answer but that is the world we live in. >> one more quick question, what do they do in other countries? i toward another country ten years ago and asked what a drug problem is. they told me the criminal penalty is shockingly high. >> can you say what it was? >> i have been wrong. shockingly high. what do they do in other countries to make sure they don't have to -- in southeast asia, some of these countries, what different penalties do they hand out? >> interesting you say that. there is a un group, the global approach to drug policy, a vast majority of countries, we need to focus on an enhanced public

health response. law enforcement plays a key role for major traffickers that we need to look at and explore alternatives, there is a consensus among countries. >> i don't mean to cut you off. i am past my time. i would like it if you would answer my question. there are a lot of people who like this public health response. i am under the impression we put people in prison for a reason. other countries have very large penalties and much less of an opium problem. can you tell me what their penalties are? >> they have less of an opium problem because in many parts of the world most people don't have access to medication at all. >> you are wrong. tell me what they are because these are countries that are fairly advanced, have an opium problem in the penalties are pretty dramatic. do you know what these are in southeast asia? >> i don't, but i can tell you

southeast asia considers labor camps part of their regimen, i would not associate drug party alone as it relates to their drug problem. >> mister lou from california. >> thank you for your service. let me begin by saying the current apps and opie an epidemic has similarities to the epidemic of 1980s. the response back then was increased prison sentences. i am pleased we are taking a different approach this time and america is realizing drug addiction is primarily a disease. one of the differences between the crack epidemic and the opium epidemic is the crack epidemic affected policies -- people of color.

the opium epidemic is different. according to a study in the journal of the american medical association, 90% of those who tried heroin for the first time, does that sound correct to you? in the new york times, heroine crisis, white families seek gentler war on drugs. because the demographic are more white and middle-class, these parents were empowered, they know how to call a legislator or get angry with their insurance company, and changing the conversation. you said that, correct? so i believe it is important to address these issues among the white middle-class. i want to make sure resources are directed across the country, socioeconomic or race status. my question is how to ensure federal resources are applied

fairly and ask unique issues affecting the community. >> important issue to me, doing this work for the better part of my life. i am glad we are at a point where we have acknowledged this will impact people of color in terms of this issue. i am glad we have a huge movement for people around the country to call for a different response. i completely agree, we have to make sure the policies in place, the programs that were implemented were targeted at those communities that have the pressing need. when we talk about criminal justice, we talk about criminal justice reform for everybody regardless of color as relates to our human response to this epidemic, needs to be a human response to everybody and not just 90% of white people who are affected by this issue. i'm glad we have learned a lot

over the past 40 years about failed drug policies. we are at a place where we are acknowledging it is a disease and we can't make jails and prisons our treatment programs. i feel a tremendous responsibility in terms of making sure we use this moment in time when there is broad acknowledgment that this is a disease and we implement those policies and programs for everybody. >> i would like to enter for the record the new york times article white families seek gentler war on drugs. >> without objection, so ordered. there have been anecdotal stories that marijuana is a gateway drug. are you familiar with an article in time magazine that says marijuana is a gateway drug that will not die? >> don't know if i have read that. >> let me quote from it. it says scientists go abandoned

the idea that marijuana causes users to try other drugs. as far back as 1999 in a report by congress, medical marijuana, the national academy of sciences, there is no evidence that drug effects of marijuana are linked to the abuse of other illicit drugs. it is true there is a correlation and this article explains underage drinking alcohol has a correlation, and marijuana is not as common, to illicit drug use. it goes on to say why might there be a correlation, one simple reason is people are interested in altering consciousness are likely to try a way of doing it. if you are a music fan you won't this into one band.

it doesn't make lullabys a gateway to the grateful dead. people who like music like many different songs. isn't it correct there is no scientific evidence that it is a link to illicit drug use? >> evidence is pretty clear that early use of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana significantly increase the probability that someone will develop a more significant addictive disorder later in their life. i think the younger people use, the more those chances grow. i also think the music analogy is inaccurate because early substance abuse actually affects brain development, not just affect people -- it affects people's brain development and predisposes people for more significant vulnerabilities later in life. >> my time is up. i will send the article on that

issue. if i could enter it in the record, the time magazine article that says marijuana is a gateway drug that will not die. >> without objection so ordered. the gentlelady from new mexico. >> thank you, mister chairman. i have no doubt we will continue in congress and localities and cities and states will debate about gateway drugs, certainly i participated in many of those discussions but alcohol was the foundation in terms of creating an environment where you put yourself more at risk, adolescent drinking, i come from a state that has the highest drug use rates and highest overdose rates in the country and i was -- i appreciate michael botticelli raising the issue in your testimony and talking about there is now a direct specific correlation between the number of prescriptions that have gone up and the number of prescription drugs issued which we are trying to deal with today.

i would hope congress undertakes an effort when we are combating the opioid problem that we look at drug issues in general or policies in general, certainly continue to debate and work on criminal justice reform, focusing on prevention and effective treatment which is the way to get at it. i appreciate the panel and members questions. i am in a state the just passed legislation that would make a lot known to more than medical providers, we want first responders, was debated to include family members to prevent overdose deaths, in a state with a republican house and democratic senate with bait -- bipartisan effort to recognize if we could prevent an overdose, let's do that but let's not minimize everything

else. finally potentially a question and director wen, this is a difficult set of problems and i will get into a debate with you here about dispensing and how that could be a benefit to limit access and one of the realities about oversubscribing not just sellers but manufacturing these drugs have done a great job, now it is cheap, more than happy right there. if you waited 27 hours to be seen they need to make sure whatever prescription they give you tides you over. the issue is you have lots of these patients with other family members, didn't have access to the medication. i am struck by the number of now

large pharmacies thinking of make sure they have got kiosks and opportunities to get rid of those drugs and get them out of the hands of kids and families and grandkids which is clearly part of the epidemic here. given all of these complexities, want to talk about the health correlation too where we are not treating, there really isn't mental health parity and in my state, no health infrastructure which i should admit to you is the fault of this administration through cms and hhs, still no treatment available, the highest apps overdose rates, the highest, one in 500 will die of a apps overdose, huge and not new, decades old. what are we doing to create

policy that recognizes the dual diagnosis and self-medicating is also part of the larger problem. >> i am sure other folks on the panel could do that. there are a number of things from a large policy perspective that happened. one is the affordable care act. one of the dramatic things, why two in ten people -- >> i must caution you the affordable care act is the reason this administration said it was okay to cancel 100% of the health providers in my state. in that example it doesn't quite work though i am a fan of general access but you should know that about new mexico. >> part of the reason people are not able to act is they don't have affordable coverage. we know that. the affordable care act says mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits have to

be part of any marketplace that is huge because there has always been lack of coverage. the second thing it does to your point is say to insurance companies you can't discriminate. >> how are we enforcing that? access is a giant issue in my state and so many others. we recognize that in policy. only ten seconds left, make sure it is occurring and medicaid and managed care, we are going to debate fee for service and managed care ad nausea him, further healthcare reform environment, the reality is insurance companies are not making it available, you don't have access in spite of coverage. >> i hear that a lot in my travels around the country and once the federal government can do more work, states and insurance commissioners, providers play a key role making sure complaints and insurance commissioners about this. we all have a role to play in

terms of enforcing parity and ensuring we are about to finalize medicaid managed care as relates to parity. i would agree we each have a role to play. >> i well above my time, thank you for your flexibility. >> thank you for participating. the gentleman from south carolina, mister gowdy. >> thank you, mister chairman. michael botticelli, am i pronouncing that correctly? i want to talk about drug court, before we get to that would you agree that there are some who traffic in narcotics who themselves are on users? >> i would agree. >> drug core won't be much help for us or them because they are not addicts, they don't use. let's go with those who are using drugs, you would also agree with me that folks who use drugs commit robbery and domestic violence and a host of

crimes we considered to have an element of violence. >> that contributes to violence. >> drug dealers don't use and drug addicts are not engaged in title 21. >> correct. >> different models for drug core, some you divert out of the criminal justice system altogether. some you plead guilty and your sentence is drug court. we had a dickens of a time in south carolina getting criminal defense attorneys to waive their clients to drug court, even though it was in the eyes of everyone better for their client who have to be an addict, tougher than probation so there was no interest in that. how do we devise a plan where

you get drug court even if your criminal defense attorney doesn't want you to have one. >> don't know if i'm the right person to answer that, working at a level that will only take federal system and drug courts are not an option, at the state local level, we are not in the best position to answer that question. >> before i go to michael botticelli, i want to ask something that might be in your wheelhouse and that would be die version, background in diversion? >> yes. >> back in the old days the standard was if they prescribe drugs outside the course of a medical practice, professional medical practice, they could be prosecuted themselves. there was a dip it looked to me in the number of cases being pursued by a diverse and standpoint.

was that an optical illusion or at some point they decided to interact with pharmaceutical companies and less with physicians prescribing the medicine. >> i am not aware of any dip on criminal and civil cases but the administrative action revoking registrations so if you are talking criminal, not aware of any dip in criminal numbers. >> would you do that? >> what span were you speaking to? >> i have been gone since 2000, so we had divergent cases, prosecuted doctors and it seemed to me the focus shifted to pharmaceutical companies. >> from a policy perspective, has never been any conscious shift, we have aggressively gone after a small percentage of the overall -- i will get back to you on that.

>> it is hard to prosecute doctors, when prescribing medicine without doing an examination without checking blood pressure, running a pill mill, with all due respect to friend on the other side, prison might be the right place for those doctors. >> what kind of drug court can you devise where criminal defense attorneys do not advise their clients against their overall better health to offer probation instead of drug court? >> i am not familiar with that. i would be happy to work with you. >> have you met the criminal defense attorney? >> i am. there has been huge support as it relates to drug courts. >> i am sure it is, there is huge support for that. i am not talking about where you

have no record or face any consequences. i am talking about pleading guilty and your punishment is drug court as a close to probation with probation being much easier than drug court. >> many drug courts operate under that model. it is interesting to me, got wide support among many folks in criminal justice so if there are folks you would like us to work with in terms of doing more education around drug court what they can do with various models we work closely with national association of drug court professionals to do levels of training and outreach. >> i am out of time. can i ask one more question? let's assume you plead guilty to robbery and sentence drug court, how many lapses are appropriate before the actual sentence is carried out? >> i would assume that gets interpreted different ways. i actually don't know that if

there is specific guidance. >> best practices, the first relapse doesn't make sense but the hundred doesn't make sense either. >> i would have to look at the national association putting up practice guidance. >> would you do that so we can have an idea of what is fair? >> there is an acknowledgment many people with substance abuse, we need to have a good response, people need to be held accountable for their actions so there is a balance between recognizing relapse. >> tell you what i will do. in honor of you i will acknowledge there are relapses legion partial honor of me, next time you have a chance to talk to criminal defense attorneys, overall in their client's best interests to get onto probation, much easier to navigate than drug core.

in the short term to their clients benefit in the long run it is not. thank you. >> to conclude we will do a quick round of summary questions, mister cummings. >> one of the things that is so disturbing to me as certain areas of people getting methadone treatment. when you see the number of people whose lives have been destroyed and we see masses of them and i say to the gentleman from south carolina, mister gowdy, i want to invite you to come with me to baltimore and when you see the masses of

people who are not -- it is painfully painful i am telling you and agree that there are those selling drugs, not using. i agree with you there are folks committing a lot of crime. most of the crime has to do with drugs in one way or another, also a group of people who are truly addicted, and 78 a day, that is major stuff. i would invite you. when you see it like that, the chairman came to me in baltimore, in some way we got to get to it. there are a lot of different remedies to try to address these

things but i am definitely not one that wants to be soft on people going around selling death and i have said to you many times, at the same time we have a lot of people who truly are addicted. the chairman from south carolina made good points, saying i am glad some of them are committing crimes, what do you think of the methadone treatment. a lot of people question whether you are keeping people continuing to be addicted to a substance. >> thank you, congressman cummings. the first issue is we know in baltimore there are 20,000 people who use heroin and many

more dealing with drugs, most of the drug arrests, 73,000 arrests happen in our city every year. a majority of the arrests are individuals who are only selling drugs to feed their own habit. what they need is not incarceration but drug treatment and that is -- have to get treatment if they are incarcerated in jail itself. >> for one seconds. one thing a lot of people don't know about heroin is you can be addicted to heroin for 30 or 40 years. am i right? and still function. is that right? >> yes. there are some individuals who are very high functioning, in all walks of life, all professional, a variety of drugs including alcohol, to your point about treatment, i am a doctor and a scientist and i have to use the evidence and evidence shows medication including methadone and morphine are the

first standard of care. when it comes to opioid addiction we also agree we need increased treatment, it can be given in an office setting, that will help us to reduce the stigma of addiction. i want to thank you for your leadership in baltimore city. we hope there will be additional funding in areas of greatest need. we are the ones on the front line, the ones who are innovating and who have the most resources evenly across all areas. >> the lock zone, the idea that we were getting for $190 in 2014 increased to $400. have you seen any movement? i know various states and the attorney general are working out getting thoughts back down.

have you seen any movement in that area? >> we have not in baltimore city. we were fortunate to receive a generous donation from a pharmaceutical company to assist us with 8000 units but we can't depend forever on a donation from companies. we have to have this medication on the world health organization medications available to everyone to save lives. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today. we have a lot -- it is a serious problem. we have to hit it from a lot of angles. years ago chairman mica and i, he was the chairman, of a subcommittee, called the drug separately and we do a lot of

work there. >> let me see. >> two quick questions. first of all drunk driving is a big problem in society. when we arrest someone for drunk driving some people are alcoholics with addiction to alcohol and some people are irresponsible people, social pressure, whatever. i only met two people in my life in the criminal justice system both thought they were not addicted. percentagewise, the people are arrested with heroin possession or whatever, what percentage are addicts and people who are social pressure or whatever, want to feel good for using heroin, what percentage are seeking treatment and what percentage are people like the person who gets drunk driving just irresponsible? can you give me your guess? >> i will take a look at it.

the rates of nonaddictive heroin are incredibly low, powerfully addictive drug. >> give me a percentage. what percentage of people arrested for heroin or addiction, two people i talked to who didn't crave it, didn't need it, did it for social reasons are going through depression. what percentage are addicted and what percentage are using it because it is cool? >> 5% of people using marijuana have no addiction to it. >> only 5%? the next gentleman. >> can't give you a percentage. we don't encounter individuals that way, can't give you a percentage.

>> what we could give you his data from the national survey, how many people have used heroin in the last month for the last year and how many are treated for disorder and you find parallel realities, we don't do screening on arrest, we don't have time to do diagnostics. everyone who is arrested for possession, we don't have the data available. >> do you have an opinion? >> i am happy to get you the data. >> do you have an opinion? the percentage that are addicted and the percentage using? >> my perspective as a practicing physician and experienced -- the vast majority, well over 90% are individuals with an addiction, heroin comes from opium and is one of the most addictive substances in the world. >> i don't have the answer.

2000 people come through our jail that acknowledge using heroin. all of them have an addiction and the reality is they acknowledge it because they know they will go through withdrawal. there is some information we could obtain through databases dealing with people prescribed opioids and how many have become addicted. >> i'm out of time because i want to ask one more question. two people i met who used heroin, they were not craving it at all. next question, when example, if i break my arm, a simple break, do you think under any circumstances, what percentage of time a doctor should prescribe for a broken arm? >> a broken arm is extremely painful and if someone came to the er with a broken arm i would

give them even iv medication for opioids. it makes sense, reasonable use. >> entirely irresponsible. anything else we have we should be prescribing opiates? for how long? what percentage think if you have a broken arm you should prescribe opiates? >> with cdc go guidelines, obvious the decision has to be made between the patient and the doctor. the lowest possible dose and shortest possible duration. >> politicians are known for not getting straight answers but go ahead. anybody else have a stab at this? is it responsible to give a prescription for opiates for at

least a week if i crack my arm here? >> if i could take a stab at this, i am a mother of four children. one of my children had multiple broken bones, one has three torn acls. they go through a lot of surgery. each time they are given opioids, each time was probably about a week and in all cases they were warned, i was warned what to look for in case of addiction. in every case, they were not on opioids for more than 48 hours. we took them off in 48 hours. as severe as those injuries were, we weaned them off. i had a severely broken bone in both of my arms. i was off of painkillers in three days and never on opioids. i hope that answers your question. anything more than that needs to be carefully looked after. >> are you a mental health professional?

>> no. i am a mom of four kids. i could be a mental health professional by the time i raise four children. >> we got one commonsense answer out of the five. thank you much. >> mister gowdy. >> i want to thank all our panelists and my friend from maryland for his gracious invitation which i will take him up on. i would love to see what is happening in baltimore. i suspect at least on a larger scale, similar to what is happening in my own hometown which is why i started the drug court in 2000. in addition to that drug court, we started a drug court for expected mothers using controlled substances during the course of the pregnancy. i do believe getting off of drugs is infinitely preferable

to incarceration in nonviolent cases. i would also say this, mister chairman, my friend from maryland, there is no joy like going to a graduation ceremony for those who have concluded drug court successfully. i have had folks i prosecuted stop me in the grocery store to show me their certificates, graduation, they are prouder of that than anything you and i could ever accomplish. in our careers. we are still going to need prisons. i would be reluctant to close all the prisons as we open up drug courts because the gentleman from maryland is right. half the crime we saw for 16 years, drugs and/or alcohol were at the root of that. there is one addict in particular, mister chairman, who took a hammer to the older couple that lived next to him

and beat them. they were in bed asleep in the middle of the night. he broken and beat them with a hammer, they were unrecognizable as humans. that was the pathologist's description, not mine. the female victim, postmortem, he raped her. he was an addict. we need to hang onto those prisons in addition to the drug courts, happy to go to maryland with my friend. and save people's lives. and innocent public, and violence and mayhem in the wake of addiction.

>> we come to baltimore. and would be happy to. i agree with you, we have a very effective drug court in maryland and i know what you are talking about when one of my first cases, early in my career where a young man hammered his grandmother to death and he was on drugs. i get it. i get it. the different categories, i swear, i wish we could get them early like you said, really bad, a balance here, when you figure out the balance, people falling

through the cracks, thank you, gentlemen. >> i thank the members for participating. a couple -- we started this three hours ago, 15 people in the united states have died from drug overdose, three from heroin, before the day is over, 120 americans will die, 24 of them from heroin, we heard different things touted here today, some people have said we just need to put more money into treatment. treatment is essential. treatment is at the end of the line. you would hear a couple comments from the other side, we need to act before we go home at easter

and put more money into the heroin and drug overdose situation. this is the remarks of senator grassley on the floor. according to the office of national drug control policy, the appropriations act passed in december, provided $400 million in funding, specifically to address the opioid epidemic. this is the increase of $100 million over the previous year. that is 25% increase. none of that money when he said that a few months ago has been spent yet. all of that money is available today? is that right? or most of it? tell me, most of that is available today and you think we are going out of here not providing money, 25% increase.

a lot of this in the record. let's put in the record too the record of how much was appropriated. how much was taken from interdiction, law enforcement, put into treatment, these are just the facts. we will put this in the record so you can see again that there is money there and i want a report. i want a report this week of how much money is spent and i want that in the record, michael botticelli, and i want something from you too, director of health and substance abuse office. i want to see how much money is pending and i wanted in my office by friday, close of business. because i know the money hasn't even been distributed, we are not going to play these games.

we need to stop this stuff at our border. it is coming in. it is coming in by the boatload of the borders. i have one question too. i talk about o, the biggest drug narc coming across the border like some kind of vacation holiday. speaking of weapons which are used in most drug offenses, they are killing people in drugs, in orlando, we kill them at the mall, we kill them in our streets, our communities, our poor communities, most of our gun deaths are related to drug trafficking, aren't they? >> a lot of those are illegal weapons. i am told i got this at this

point. going back and forth. and the united states government. and he had one of the fastest, are you aware of that. and and i met with some of those people, are not what they should be. we go to singapore. i want to put you out of business. all the treatment programs, i want to put them out of business because our kids and adults

should not go to treatment but we are allowing this crap to come into the united states. we are killing tens of thousands. anything else, people would be outraged. just say no, just say maybe. they get a little hot. and i see them dying again in my community. and we are not treating people, we don't have the scourge. we this hearing is adjourned.

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> later today on c-span donald trump campaigning in west virginia, the presidential primary on tuesday. you can see his rally in charleston live on c-span at 7:00 pm eastern. at 8:00 pm on c-span2, booktv in prime time. tonight, interviews with four authors, bush administration justice department official john you, civil rights commission chair mary frances berry, former

congressman jc watts and aol founder steve case. that starts at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> this weekend the c-span cities tour hosted by charter and time warner cable partners takes you to san bernardino, california to explore the history and literary culture of the city located east of los angeles. on december 2, 2015, 14 people were killed and 24 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack in the inland regional center of we spoke to congressman pete. >> it means something. because this isn't a big city in san bernardino, this could happen anywhere.

>> we speak with san bernardino city councilman about a memorial to the victims of the attack. >> it provides a sense of remembrance, highlights their lives and what they contributed to our local community and always near and dear to provide a place of consolation. we are thinking of serenity garden in and around this area. >> on booktv we will learn about the family of wyatt earp, his book talks about the herbs notoriety and their connection to san bernardino. >> the connection to san bernardino county goes back to 1852 when the father of wyatt earp who was well known named nicholas earp, left his family

temporarily. they were living in monmouth, illinois. he heard about the gold rush in monmouth, california, went back to the midwest, ventured to southern california and passed through the san bernardino valley and found one day he would come back to san bernardino. >> we visit the san bernardino history and railroad museum to talk about the importance of the railroad to san bernardino with the historical society vice president, located in 1918 santa fe depot. the museum contains many objects related to the city's railroad history. >> it was completed in 1918 replacing of the wooden structure that was 100 yards east of here that burned in 1960. why it was built a lot larger than needed, they decided to house the division headquarters at this location at that time. >> watch the c-span cities tour at noon eastern on c-span2's

booktv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. the c-span cities tour working with visiting cities across the country. >> the american jewish committee of houston last week hosted a discussion on the economics of immigration and the effects of different plans to combat illegal immigration. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you. good evening. my name is richard fulton, director of national and legislative affairs for the american jewish committee. i am pleased to welcome you to this evening's program organized i the belford institute for latino and latin american affairs. the economics of immigration

reform. this could not be a more timely coming together discussion. i can't say whether it was on the front page or not but the wall street journal ran a major story on the thorny economics of illegal immigration. that story, they knew we were holding this session. that story says few issues in the presidential campaign, how much to crack down illegal immigration which some in particular blame for america's economic woes. this is a timely issue not only because of the campaigns but because it has been a timely issue for too many years as many of us struggle to bring about reform of our broken immigration system and as the title indicates economics of

immigration reform. as bruce springsteen writes in his song american land, this american land, the smith, blacks, irish, italians, germans and jews came across the water 1000 miles from home with nothing in their bellies but the fire down below, they died building the railroads, worked to bones and skin, died in fields and factories, scattered in the wind, died to get here 100 years ago, still dying now, the hands that built the country were always trying to keep out. as randy noted his introductory remarks earlier, a jc is committed to fair and generous treatment of immigrants at the jewish value. the lyrics of this song, not

only about humane treatment and always the case that immigrants 100 years ago. and how important immigration has been to the well-being of the country's economy. ray perryman to deliver a keynote address on this issue. two people down to my right, some brief remarks by our respondents beginning with my far right with jesus romero, director of the 8 center project of the christian life foundation, baptist general convention of texas, quite a mouthful. we will then hear from todd

schulte, president of forward us and finally to my immediate right, we will hear from steve murdock, director of the hobby center for the study of texas at rice university. please join me at the podium. [applause] >> thank you very much. i was talking a month or so ago, found out they had a 20 inch podium and the way i found that out is i was away from staff, could jump up there, a 26 inch vertical leap. couldn't say either word, have to be honest. talking about this important topic, i won't say how long,

steve murdock, jesus romero, thank you for putting this together, this important issue we need to talk about. i can't resist one more thing about myself. i recently got a little award, about 1000 people, they just started to distinguish the alumni award and that may distinguish -- i love that. i went over there, talk to some friends and told her the wonderful things about it. what were the challenges? had to take drivers education. and then she thought about that and said don't drive very well

either. how much respect i get at home. we have been hearing and going to hear a lot about issues in coming months. we are in an election cycle. we can't avoid it, it will be with us a few months and you are hearing a lot of things said, some very compassionate, some very cruel, some in between but it will be much of that conversation is going to set a lot more heat than light. what i am trying to do, what i have done, our entire careers, call them like we see them, the numbers are what the numbers are and that is the bottom line. i will start with one simple number that plagued this issue for the state of texas. a few years ago we had a 50 state study, the numbers are different but every state has the same direction of impact that this is a startling number. what we hear all the time is

these folks are taking jobs away from americans. there are twice as many undocumented workers working from the state of texas today, unemployed people in the state of texas today. twice as many people were undocumented in the state of texas as people who were uninformed in the state of texas. now, never mind that a lot of those folks are unemployed for all kinds of reasons, physical skills do those jobs and skilled construction trades, put that aside and pretend to swap them out, that is not realistic but say you could. you would suddenly have a gap of 600,000 workers in the state of texas. in one day.

how would you go about filling that gap. the answer is you wouldn't. that would create a difficult and destructive situation and that is basic economics of situations right now. markets have always had remarkable ability to find ways to get things done. the reason we have a lot more undocumented workers than we had 30 years ago is very simple. baby boomers got old. we had shortages of workers. we did all kinds of things, we encouraged more folks to come in. put medicare and childcare and everything else in the workplace to keep people working. we started job sharing, letting people work from home, using more and more technology to take the place of workers, start encouraging retired people to

come back to the workforce. all those things because the market has defined more folks to work. and we started having more undocumented workers. you can track the numbers, a lot of folks work on it. and it fluctuates with the economy. during good times you have more, other times you have less and it is the labor force, the response you get. what is the economic impact of the workforce? we did some numbers on that, and the multiplier effect for those things, you can think of either one, doesn't matter. if you don't like multipliers we are looking at 10% of the texas economy. we are looking at a mixed economy. we are looking at somewhere

between 1.2 and 3 million jobs, somewhere between almost 150 billion $150 billion in gross state product to generate $1.5 trillion, roughly 20% number, 10% to 20% depending what number you use and those are very big numbers, very significant and indicate how important it is, and the numbers come out. the other thing you hear is these folks are such a drain on the public service system. here is the reality. when people manage that and come up with those numbers, you see all the time how much money, what you forget is when a person works, the tax revenue they generate is up, the tax revenue they pay, when a person works, by definition working for somebody else, and producing something and the fact they

produce, i am not talking about multiplier effects, but the fact that the work was done with types of revenue, direct result of those folks being here. when you look at it that way and recognize where benefits are drawn, and try to measure it every way we can. we also included the controversial issue these days, if you have undocumented parents and they have an american child that incurs cost of assistance we included that child. ..

it made the difference. that does not mean every government i is a winner. there are some government sectors right now that and up behind. that's because if you look at local governments, most of the revenue they generate is the sales tax. that's most the revenue they generate. most sale sales tax those two c. the services they consume are typically healthcare services and education services were provided by the school district and county their own property taxes. consequently to carve up of local money doesn't always match the need. there are some local governments that are going through some strengths and difficulties in this system. when you have a surplus on the total there's a simple way to fix that. it's not hard at all if you ask someone in the system it simple to do. if the want of a thing called

the politics. if we could get rid of that it's not hard at all to solve that problem. the bottom line is, this is a vital part of our economy. i'm leaving politics out of it, leaving human issues. this is a vital part of our economy. we do not have a way to replace this workforce. whether you're conservative or liberal, compassionate, not compassionate come in a pure dollars and cents numbers way, we need to policies that make sense in this regard. and when you look at it that way it becomes very, very simple. if you create policies that make it harder, the economic costs are going to be higher. if you create policy that makes it more efficient where these workers can be your in a way that's not the group, the girl we towns have together now, if

you make it a more rational process for them to get here and to work and to the contributors to the economy, they make the system more efficient. economists often look at things whether it's efficiency reducing or efficiency enhancing. a lot of what we do today is efficiency reducing. a lot of what's being proposed right now is really efficiency reducing. because they could literally -- in the big report, there so many different scenarios and we did one scenario and it wasn't shut everything down immediately sort of thing. we did one would make it a lot more difficult, took on alternations and proposals, if you make it a lot harder. as you can imagine the cost to the state becomes hundreds of thousands of jobs. even when you give time for the markets to adjust its significant cost. on the other hand, if you make the process more efficient where people can come and go as they

want to end this here in the workforce. what you find is it's not, it's like they want to be with in the family. they're here for their jobs. it is very much a case of economic opportunity and economic need that drives the mayor and it is a very, very important contribution. the workers span a lot of different industries. we had a number of them into a gas sector. a large percentage of them are agricultural workers. they are workers in the hospitality industry workers in the construction industry. think if you have an economy where you could grow anything can build anything or go anywhere. think about that for a minute. where you could grow anything, that's what we're looking at. it's a very, very file called in our economy, something we need to preserve and protect.

and need to make the system work more efficiently. if we can do that we achieved a lot the wonderful gold from a humanitarian perspective. we achieve a lot of calls from equity and compassion perspective, a lot of important goals i was asked to talk about those to make her i was asked to talk but what happens in the economy. because it can reduce do is we allow this great economic engine that our state is built and it is a great economic engine, and the fact we can go through major oil bust and still continue to grow is adequate testimony. it's a great economic engine rebuild driven by technology, by minerals, health care, many, many things right now. it's a wonderful burst. if want to keep that vibrant and growing, there are some things we have to do. we have to invest in education. we have to invest in the safety net. we have to invest in infrastructure. and we have to the workforce that can meet our needs.

if you look at the landscape of that workforce right now this is a very vital absolutely medical piece of it. if we don't preserve and hopefully improved that we will pace of economic consequences here in texas. thank you very much. [applause] >> before we proceed, a couple of notes -- >> can't hear you. >> better now? so first of all, you have only heard his title, all of our speakers every distinguished resumes and biotech you'll find their bios in the packets you have in front of you. second, at the end of the remarks, i may have a couple of

questions asked but then we'll turn to all of you. there should be cards on your tables. we will be taking questions in the form of cards being filled out and then we will read some questions out. and, finally, in a little change of direction, we will start proud with doctor murdock and nasty to proceed with your response and the proceeds down the line. >> thank you. i'm going to get over because against the more protection. [laughter] i'm glad to be here and very nice things being said about me here, and i'm reminded of a little talk i was getting in a small town in texas, an the gentleman who had been given the job of introducing got ill at the last moment. he said doctor murdock has done a lot of things in it done a lot of dim, dim, i don't think it ever see seen the word demograpr before. but finally he said i guess it's

best use just to refer to him a, think of him as a rural demagoguery. [laughter] i'm going to try not to be a demagogue or today. i do want to start off with some basic facts i think are important about immigration your and undocumented immigration. we know, for example, that as the 2015 or about 44 million immigrants of all forms, illegal, documented, undocumented in the united states. we know from estimates that we have done by the pew hispanic center who does the best work in this area that the number of undocumented immigrants in the country is about 11-13 million. he says that could be 13. and about 1.6-1.8 million in

texas. when i heard these figures often give people a rush of saying those are wrong your those are wrong. there are 30-40 million in the united states, and there's 3 million, if there's a single person, in texas that is undocumented. i'll tell you what, jeff is a demographer trained at the university of texas. he is the key person for the pew hispanic center does the as with an undocumented immigration. i think consider the nation's expert industry and i said to him, i said jeff, how do you know that there are not 30 or 40 million of these people? >> and he said steve, there's one thing you cannot hide, and that is dying. and if there are literally 30 or 40 million of these people, they are the healthiest group of people who have ever walked the face of the earth last night

because they got added level of 11-30 million if you look across the country. i think one of the things that's important understand demographically is the fact, we talked about this with labor force but when you start looking at populations, one of the things you see is that those in your that look like to me, that are not hispanic whites as we call them, are disappearing. we are literally dying out. [laughter] now, let me tell you why i say that. if you look at national figures, for example, and you look at the last census decade, for example, from 2000-2010, and you look at the children, so you kind of see what's coming, what you find is

that the number from 2000-2010, the number of non-hispanic white children declined by about 4 million. the number of hispanic children increased more than that, okay? such as concentrate and hispanic specialty one of the immigrant groups, you can see on board these populations are to us simply maintaining our population. that's not to talk at all and we will not appear for right now, when he is something that ray pointed out, and that is not only are we dying out because we are not great at having enough kids, in the long-term, but we don't look like me are getting older and older. so that if we look at immigration, we need to see and do not only something that is impacting us now but will impact us in the long-term, and so get if it does not occur, america will demographically not be

better. the other thing i think we need to look at what was at immigration comin, give us a lot the economic aspects, not only of the impact on our economy, but increasingly what happens to that proportion of the economy that they represent if we don't change the socioeconomics that go with our demographics? the reality of it is that we look at this in great deal of detail. the future of the united states, the future of texas is tied to its minority populations. and because minority populations are more likely to be immigrant populations also to our immigrant population. and the reality of it is whether we look at texas, i think we made a good point, over look at the trend as a whole, the reality of it is about the future of both is tied to our of

minority and our immigrant populations, and how well they do is really how will america will do and how well texas will do. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. you've given a whole new meaning, talking behind my back. todd, please. >> i could do it here but i will go over real quick. can anyone hear me okay? greg my name is todd shoulder, the president of in our possession named fwd.us. fwd.us. we are an advocacy or position, about two and half years old and we were started by bunch of leaders in the tech community want to fix the broken immigration system. we have three principles that go into this brought companies or commonsense immigration reform framework.

they are fix illegal immigration systems that makes sense for today's them an economy. we should secure the border, but with that we need a pathway to citizenship for the 11.5 million, 11-13 million, and those are our principles but i'm going to talk a little bit about the high skilled space because that's a place to concentrate in addition to working in the undocumented population. before i do that i think we are going to talk about the politics of it tonight but i just want to echo what has been said. what of the things that we think is important is to get the truth out there and one of the issues that we run into is the people who just have, feeling they should have their own plaques. we rented a question about why

don't we just secure the border for stability to this issue later? why don't these people go to the back of the line? why wouldn't they just fix their own situation? so as someone who spends the majority of his waking hours trying to get members of congress to be supportive on this issue, it's so great to talk to people who are interested and passionate about this issue and who are working on this issue and have been working on this issue of a lot longer than we have, so thank you. i'm going to do a fun experiment. everybody, i left my foot over there but everybody reach into your pocket and put your phone up for a second. you should all take a picture of me. i look a great. [laughter] so everybody okay? i want you, if you're holding a phone that is not either running on a programming or design by an

immigrant or children of immigrants, if you think you've got a phone, keep it up, otherwise everybody put your phone down. anybody? okay, i feel pretty good that no has got like an old nokia from pre-2000 by. that's all basically we figured out. we have, you're the exception. that's great. it's been 25 years since we had the last update to our legal immigration system. cutting edge technology at that time, we were this big transition would went from a tarry to nintendo. [laughter] the soviet union was our major superpower. the internet didn't exist. so for the innovation sector, for the tech sector, for what we've seen boom here in austin can immigration is critical and

we are a nation of immigrants but we no longer the legal immigration system that works for today's economy. 40% of fortune five of the countries were started by an immigrant or children of an immigrant 50% of silicon valley and 60% of startups around the country started with one immigrant founded the immigrants are twice as likely as the native-born published the entrepreneurs. if you look at our immigration system though, we've been help back. let me tell you about our immigration system. we have an incredible problem with green card. we have incredible problem with h-1b. a problem with foreign-born students. i will start with those and i will go through the process of what we think our immigration system should look like. you want to come to this country. you studied in college in the philippines or in bold or wherever. a big place that you get into this country jamaica to an

american university. then you graduate from an american university and you've got one year. so you get what's called the optional practical training program. you have the ability to work in a place if you have an employer, okay great. so like if you graduate from a college, we had the subsidized education by the way and then the question is what happens then when you have had one year temporary pass? unfortunately then we throw these people out in many cases. a lot of people tried to get was called and h-1b visa but they give you a sense of how limiting these are. there are 65,000 spots available. another 20,000 available for people with a masters degree. but in the last decade, every single h-1b visa has been taken off either between the first day or the first week. we don't have a legal

immigration system that is leading in high-skilled immigrants. so you get the h-1b educators differ well. you decide you want to apply for a green card. anybody here from the philippines, from china, from india? anybody in the room? so if you are from, let's pick india today. and you were to apply for a green card. you could sponsor to a great employer. does anyone want to guess how long it would take you to get your green card today lacks five years? higher or lower, anybody? how long? 10 years? 10 is a pretty long time. 27 probably right now, okay? suggest palfrey second on what that means. these are people who for high school immigrants if you're from somebody's high skilled countries we put a campus it is only certain number of immigrants who can come from certain countries.

china, the philippines, from india, we have a lot of immigrants coming in. people are stuck in this incredible backlog. just think on its 2016. you are talking 2043 before you can get a green card which is well past into like flying cars and that. i say that, it's important to put things into perspective. it's been 25 years since the soviet union fell. it will be another 25 years before people can get that piece of paper where it says i am a permanent resident in this country. we think we need to dramatically expand of that. we have a high skilled immigration system that no one reflects the values of a country. if you look historically, that tried has been built by immigrants, our greatest competitive advantage in the world historically has been that we are a nation of immigrants, that people will risk so much to come here. so what we're fighting for is to

have a system that embraces fat and we're heading into a more globalized economy and we think we need a legal immigration system that makes up for that. so thank you. [applause] >> we had agreed initially to stay in our seats but not everybody is standing up here, so i will do that as well. my name is jesus romero, and i am born and raised in mexico, first generation immigrant, came to the united states in 1987 for graduate school, and never left. but on my dads side, his whole family is from texas, and they have been living here since these lands were part of mexico.

and so one day in 1848 they woke up and i found out that they belong to a different country. they stayed put. that didn't break the family. the replicate back and forth, and very grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts here. i'm actually a spanish professor. that's what i do for a living. and i teach hispanic american culture and literature. i am not an economist. i'm a tiny little bit intimidated by these good, wonderful folks over here. that's true, but still, you have an imposing presence last night until hundred and -- [laughter] i was come to show that about the impact that immigration reform has on texas baptists so that's my other job is if i did have enough with the classroom.

i began really sensing in my life that i wanted to serve immigrants, just like myself, being very grateful for this adoptive country of mine who has been so gracious to me. and so we became the director of the immigration service and aid center which is a ministry that works under the umbrella of the christian life commission which is an agency that deals with the relationship between faith and ethics and justice and public policy. so that umbrella is part of the baptist general convention of texas. and around 2006 we baptists just got sick and tired of the same immigrants being taken advantage of by immigration consultant here in texas we call them -- i don't know if anybody is familiar with the term.

those are like a plague in the state of texas. so here's another. these people are people who are really practicing law without a license. they are not immigration attorneys and they are also not recognize are accredited by the board of immigration appeals. so they charge hefty fees to get immigration paperwork all they have of people claiming to be helping them. they are really skimming out of thousands and thousands of dollars that they charge like attorneys but they do nothing. or worse yet, they file for people and get in trouble, get them on deportation proceedings. there was one case here in austin just three or four years ago where one single no target was able to get $50,000 out of a single family of immigrants. $50,000. really an exchange for nothing. and according to numbers from the state of texas, there is one no target of opened up shop in

the state of texas every day. -- notario. does not enough money, not enough manpower to go after these people and the penalties are still not that stiffness of the people will be more protected. we got sick and tired of seeing the abuse and we've got out about the board of immigration appeals recognition and accreditation process which hardly anybody knows anything about, but it turns out that nonprofits, religious, social, nonprofits can apply for this for recognition and accreditation. if they go through proper training and immigration law they get the blessing of the department of justice and they can offer legal services to the trick is you offer at a low cost. you are doing it to help people but you get to practice law of immigration law without having a law degree. and so we decided that we would

encourage baptist churches belonging to texas baptist to be part of that. go for bia recognition and accreditation. open up these legal service centers as ministries so that you can reach out to immigrant communities and bless them and protect them and teach them. and if you can, offer legal services and get them to green card or give them their citizenship. we have been doing that since 2006. i can give you a few numbers about the impact of immigration reform. the christian life commission has a budget of close to half million dollars, and we estimate that with immigration reform anywhere from 20-30% of that amount could easily be redistributed to meet other needs among the texas population.

one big area where we have a neat is that we have lots of hispanic churches, at this are becoming more and more brown, more and more hispanic. and we are in need of leadership and we don't have enough pastors. he had no idea how many calls i get there at least one or two calls every week from somebody from some church asking me, can we petition for this gentleman? he is such a leader, such a man of god. we want them as our pastor but we can't because he is undocumented. it's heartbreaking, so that's one number for you there. the project was created to offer those legal services out of san antonio. we work out of the campus of baptist university of the americas, which is the college where i serve. we are spending close to $100,000 a year just on serving immigrants in texas, both

documented, especially undocumented. the funny thing is a little bit of a paradox, because we talk about immigration reform and we talk about the need for something to happen so that these people come out of the shadows, and we didn't get the full economic benefit, but given the problem that i alluded to before with these scammers, these immigration consultants, unless the law changes to do something about that, my guess is that we're going to have to continue to spend money to protect people. because they will be in the hands of scammers. so that's one thing that we advocate for immigrants, both documented and undocumented. we are very strong about making everybody aware that this problem with immigration

consultants. so those are the numbers that i have for you. and i'm just very grateful that we texas baptists get to do this kind of the ministry. because, you know, it puts us in contact with people we are not dealing with abstractions. these are real people, the strangers among us. they have worth and their dignity, every to do as an organization of texas baptists, do everything we can to care for them and protect them. thank you very much. [applause] >> and before i turn to the first question, i'm also looking forward to receiving russians appear from all of you on the floor. i just want to thank the remote or reflect on the importance of the religious voice in this effort.

one of the important in washington is something called the interfaith immigration coalition were as numbers of the jewish faith would often bring to the fore this notion of remembering that you were strangers in the land of egypt, and you evoke the concept of a stranger. we speak about that anthony that brings out for us to be mindful of the stranger and to see that he and she is well treated. is a concept we share of course with the baptists, with catholics, with muslims, with many faiths working together to try to bring about response, so thank you for that testimony. i want to turn to the issue of the notion that somehow immigrants are taking away jobs from americans, and perhaps play a look at of devil's advocate sinjar also much in unison here,

so this is directed to rape it really to anyone else who wants to answer. this one commentator has said the problem is not that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs that americans will not do. economic it has to do taking jobs americans can't do because of minimum wage laws, because of laws having to do with safety of the workplace, other labor laws, and that employers are in effect getting the benefit of hiring people who are not come in a way that is not in conformity with the laws, that's cheaper and that ain't the way we are seeing the benefits in some place an economy with cheaper prices by fully and entirely inequitable thing to do. and was one of the reasons why the jobs are not being taken by america's because we are dealing with jobs that are not being done in a proper setting. that's one claim. on top of that, in his now famous "wall street journal" article that i referred to

earlier, famous in this room anyway, we are told the arizona economy, first t but have some draconian anti-immigration laws. they had good luck tough about the covert become at the time so they didn't come it wasn't clear what impact of that offended begin to feel a worker shortage as the economy again to improve. what they found, this article reports happened is that there was a worker shortage and that wages rose about 15% for arizona farmworkers and about 10% for construction workers. these are legal residents between 2010-2014 according to the bureau of labor statistics. some employers say their need for workers has increased since then leading them to boost wages more rapidly and crimping their ability to expand. in terms of boosting wages are rapidly i guess the question is what's wrong with that? >> that's the question that i put you into anyone else.

>> i will start sinc sent you directed it to me, richard. there are people who abuse the system. there is no question about that. it happens and it's unfortunate. that's not a typical situation. if you look at the situations basically some of these folks work for lower wage industries. some work in high wage industries and is not always the case if you bid up the way to give our workers. a lot of situations they simply are not there. that's the situation we find ourselves in. the numbers agenda abroad, our friends at pew center. we know 75% of these folks are paying withholding taxes come income tax, social security. it's not a case of what a lot of people perceive it to be. the other thing i will point out on the subject and i think it's important, i'm going to take a couple of numbers i throughout and a couple numbers steve throughout and a couple we can agree on put them together for a

minute. in texas with roughly 12 million folks working. our population is roughly 27 million, give or take. somewhere, for the workers is about 2.5 people. thereabouts. states o of the population betwn 1.6-1.000000 undocumented. the workforce is 1.2. so if you take 1.6, that's one editor. if you take one and. those folks are counted in our state population. they actually bring the average down already, 2.5 if you take them out. you have 2.5 versus one and a third, one event. what that tells us is these folks are coming into work. they are coming to when jobs are available and when their intimate. if it's one and a third companies have a worker, there's only one spouse that comes in for every three workers. when you start love children, it's an even lower number. it's not the case of one of the

myths you here, person comes in, spouse, seven or eight kids. those numbers don't hold a. you don't get 1.61.2 million people working if that's the case. the numbers just don't over. these are people who are responding to a labor market and responding to a shortage of the situations that occur in arizona were wages went up but a situation occurred where they had a pure worker shortage. they could that get people to build the things that needed to be built. it's the balance. it's a balancing thing. if we have immigration reform will that will raise wages? probably so. is there anything wrong with that? probably not. but you have to keep in mind that balance is very much a function of disappointment and, not so much a construction got it was a big project mind paying a 5% in wages. they simply cannot get the people to do the jobs. it's very much an essentially