an opportunity to force a grand bargain. that did not work and then we got the budget control act which had spending limits and doesn't really address the drivers of the debt. then, this the-- the process that was supposed to be so horrible that would force the super committee to design something better and instead we got sequester. i don't think the sequester is a great way to go in the future and to something i wish i did see in here, i do agree that thinking about that as a shared gdp is the way to think about it and it's good to see chairman price thinking about ways to make the debt limit more rational. i would be concerned with doing that in a world where you are in a recession and gdp is shrinking that you may hit the debt limit, so you are increasing the likelihood of a default price at the worst time to deal with that. what i would rather see here, there's the reason for the debt

limit. there is no purpose that it serves. if you vote for spending and policies there should not be any question that you will then pay the bill and they come due and it used to be the debt limit was a way to embarrass the party in charge. it changed into something that was actually taken at hostage frankly where it was something you had to get in return and i think that's dangerous and we almost defaulted several times in the last couple of years and i think we need to get rid of that situation, not just for the next administration, but for future administrations and whether that means abolishing the concept of debt limits altogether or going to some sort of-- i think senator mark-- senator mcconnell did this in the past where the center-- present can authorize a debt limit and congress has the opportunity to disapprove, but there is no hostage taking.

>> before you continue because i went to disagree with you on one thing. i think i disagree with you and i may be wrong, but i don't think congress does make many hard decisions unless they are forced to these days after the way we legislate is by last-minute or almost crisis and i think sometimes what we are trying to do is create action forcing moments and if you look at like a last year i was not a fan of the bills because they added to the debt, but we had a fg art fix and extenders and those only came because deadlines were hitting. we headed to the debt, so i was not the biggest fan, but i am trying to think when congress has made hard choices of fiscal improvement without some sort of forcing a mechanism. >> i think most americans we talk much as and confidence don't want to be more fiscal

cliffs or government shutdowns and i think it has been a positive thing that over the course of the obama administration enough of these cliffs have been resolved that we no longer have to to budget baselines. we just have one budget baseline. i hope it stays that way that current laws basically reflective of where we think we will-- where current laws actually are. for example where they have made to have choices, the affordable care act. there was no forcing mechanism there, but expanded health insurance and covers 20 million more people with health insurance and hard choices were made to pay for that. that reduction grows over time. amazing thing between the affordable care act and overall slowdown in healthcare costs which seems to be partially due to that aca, but also the reforms aca made directly in medicare, total spending on federal health programs in 2016

is less than was thought in 2009 in 2009, we are talking about medicare and medicaid, so now, we have medicare, medicaid and the affordable care act with huge coverage and we are spending less money than we thought we would. that has required hard choices. i decide had today and courage in congress to repeal demonstration program stunt under the affordable care act and the advocates of the affordable care act took a lot of flak for the cuts in medicare. i think what you saw there were genuinely hard choices and people can oppose those choices and opposable portable care act, but i think that represented lawmaking. >> fill in the i hope to get the congressman to weigh in. >> on the only one in congress here. [laughter] >> in terms of following up and in terms of things that i would do differently are things i would add, one of them has to do

with the debt limit and i agree with kerry that i would get rid of the debt ceiling and whatever we think about action forcing mechanisms and whether they are a good thing, playing russian roulette with a vet-- the economy is not a good action forcing mechanism. i think what they are doing is a step in the right direction, but i would go all the way and get rid of the debt ceiling. the second thing i would do, which goes further than what they are doing here is that i like the idea of not having term limits for budget committee members. i would go further. i have suggested elsewhere making what are now the budget committee on national priority and have them include chairs and ranking members of the other major committees in congress. i think it's a good thing if what are now the budget committees will be setting priorities for congress, then they ought to include the people

who have the most taken that and i think those are the chairs and ranking members of the committee's. the third thing that is not directly addressed and may be addressed by that committee on public concept, which i think is a great idea. i don't see mention of tax expenditures and i think that focusing on tax expenditures and the transparency of tax expenditures, which are way less than-- appeared than spending we can do three through the tax code and no one knows without it whereas spending is very transparent and i would like to see that addressed more directly. i did what to take you up on your offer to say something about baselines. i'm going to do something that may just be telling of the time i spent at cbo, but i will defend baselines and i think the things that are said here may be true, which is that there may be some tendencies for baselines to drive spending up. baseline survey useful purpose and that is answering the

question, what are we actually doing in terms of our ability to finance current policy. many of the same people who want to get rid of baselines also, i think, would say if we froze the defense budget in nominal terms from this year till next year we would have less defense capability that share that we the sure and that to me is the purpose of a baseline, saying how much would it cost us to continue to do the same things we are doing now and so in that sense baselines are useful concept. they are not unique to the congressman to the federal government. this is a standard thing to do budgeting, to ask the question how much will it cost us next year to continue doing the things that we're doing right now. >> david, still no, that baseline for you to make no, i agree with that. to say we will not adjust the baseline for inflation is basically to not use the most

economically meaningful way of measuring what our current services are. >> do we have microphones for questions and answers? i'm going to go ahead and force you to answer something and then we will open it up. >> i want to thank everyone for being here. speaking perhaps on behalf of the staff, i would concur with doctor price. this is going to-- this is a serious effort and i suspect it will be a permanent effort speaking as a rank-and-file person in congress, basically. there is a lot of energy behind this and a lot of interest to get it done. knowing that this is a discussion and i appreciate everyone's feedback in the questions that are sure to come. there might be some added to this by rank and file and there might be others taken away. re: term limits and appointments, let's remember the budget committee did not exist before the budget act of 74.

i have been in congress since i came in the way the 2011 and i have been on the committee for six years and i intend to stay, not as an appointment of another committee and so that my be something that i might want to add. not only do we had to get rid of similar-- term limits, but maybe a true budget committee. i don't know if that would go far, but i think-- remember the appointments are there to make sure the budget, this new creature did not get too out of hand. >> you mean the appointments made by the rules committee? >> correct. definitely appreciate your comments on getting rid of term limits and on the debt ceiling and on deadlines generally, let's not forget congress is a reflection of you. everyone sat here and talked about congress in the third

person, but we are reflection of the country and we are human and because we are human we react to deadlines like each of you do. in your professional and academic careers, so i think deadlines to your point are a good thing and with regard to the debt ceiling, i don't look at it as holding things hostage or reckless i look at it as forced us to the table and perhaps we would not need a debt ceiling if we were not the worlds reserve currency and if we are limited in that sense, but because we can print money it will end because we are the least ugliest at the dance-- the world dance and who knows if this might change or not, but we get away with more than others do and i think a debt ceiling-- i love the reforms and ideas in here, but i think there needed and with regard to tax expenditures, not biased towards

getting spending down in your fear of that. we won't bore that we won't appropriately address tax expenditures or otherwise known as confiscation of people's property. i would say when you look at the debt ceiling with it debt trajectory and see that it's near vertical i would love to see your numbers, but i disagree that you can tax people enough-- yeah, you can text people enough to stabilize the debt for the next couple years, but not ultimately. i think you can confiscate 100% of the value of goods and services and at a point you still won't be able to pay off the debt or get it down to a reasonable level without reforming spending, so from a congressman's perspective that is how we are coming at this, not from bias of one political over another, but boldly the real problem which is spending and revenue. thank you. >> thank you. are there other questions where other people want to jump in?

ica hand back their. yes, you. microphone is coming to you hear. >> hello i'm a student in the area. i have a quick question, but before that i wanted to jump in on what the race-- congressman just said. i respect to her years of service for your constituents, but i take a slight offense was sort of the comparison of this budget deadline in comparison to the normal budget deadline. i think the sort of like we are human sort of sounds like an excuse for such an important thing as was mentioned at the getting this is one of the most important things congress does, so that was just a quick note. i was wondering if the panelists could talk about the political realities and increasing the numbers of discretionary categories. i don't appreciate that so much

the spending is outside of the purview of the budget process, but i worry increasing it adds a cop located that seems to barely get done. thank you. >> i remember when i was just a student, not sure i knew about discretionary spending. >> i would say that with regard to this number of discretionary bills, i mean, we are talking about nothing magical or wholly about appropriations bill. i think that is wanting to keep in mind. we need to step outside the box and think through how we structure these decisions. i think the deadlines are good. i think the debt ceiling represents a reflection points that forces people out in the country and their representatives in congress to make these tough decisions and as long as they are made in a transparent way it's a good thing. we need more of that kind of seth and i think that basically we need more conflict in the budget process, i think. it's important how the conflict

arrives. it needs to be open and transparent so people can see with the representatives are doing and what they're advocating for and how they are voting on things and then they can weigh in on the back end and say we love congressman x because he voted for life we don't like him and we think he should not come back. congress does not give them that option in part because they are not demanding it, so it's not just congress this fall. i think there is a lot of good proposals in here that increase transparency in the process i can help to achieve that debate, but until we had that debate none of this stuff matters. it won't get anywhere because congress will keep responding to the signals the people are spending, which is to not take these. >> i think there is one thing we should point out responsive to your question that people may not know that it is in here, which this would establish a commission to recommend converting mandatory spending programs to discretionary programs and so you can say

whatever you like about that. again, we don't know which programs whether that's medicare, medicaid, social security, but if you want conflict in the budget process that will get it for you. you have to debate every year what this sort of level of spending will be or medicare or medicaid or social security. you will have your wish. >> you speak to capacity issue in this gives you conflict. it's been done once before. although, for the wrong reasons at the beginning of the 20th century, but they don't need to have responsible the primary discretionary build-- bill. there is nothing magical. at the turn of the 20th century the house and senate, the leave, got rid of the appropriations committee and gave a subcommittee on appropriations each authorizing. these are the kinds of things we need to think through when trying to design a system that can speak to the problems we

have to address. >> i used to work for a member of the appropriations committee, so i would say authorizing committee. [laughter] >> you would like to authorize as well. >> that's a funny joke, by the way. please go on. >> i think it's worth backing up and saying why is this the case? why are more worry ceases blowing through mandatory spending cracks one reason is that congress has decided years ago to establish programs that do that. so, i get a bit annoyed when i see pie charts from 1965 and then go to 2015 is a mandatory spending has grown. we passed medicare and medicaid in 1965. them as argument is we should not have medicare medicaid. there's also mandatory programs

that could be discretionary and also discretionary programs that could probably be mandatory at basically congress should fund of them year to year based on whatever is needed on more or less more or less entitlement basis. i think it's worth figuring it out, but i think the reason you see more spending-- more programs go through the mandatory site is that congress has enacted discretionary spending that is too low and because they had done that money finds a way and one way that it does that is to-- if you are saying we want more money for medical research well, there's not enough money under the spending limits for discretion are spending to do that, so we have to make it mandatory to be sure that money will make it to institutions like an ia. this is also-- also the concern with tax expenditures. if you have limits on mandatory spending that make it harder to do things on the mandatory side of the budget there is always

tax breaks and you see congress doing this anyway and again, i think the congressman is right that is a reflection of the american people. people want to see things done. tax breaks are way to provide government resources. i don't think there is a functional difference between whether a government subsidy is handed out via spending program or tax break. of the main concern with tax breaks as they tend to be viewed towards those-- those at the top. there is nothing inherently wrong, but to the point that they tend to get less scrutiny and art less transparent, so i would be nervous about a system where the only way for congress to respond to the needs of the american people as with more tax breaks. >> 's stuart butler and i will publish a paper shortly to try to think how you get a compromise on this which not that mandatory spending would be

treated as discretionary, but also would not go unchecked as it does now unless there is effort to do something where you would have to consider the budget, look at the long-term budget, take affirmative vote to approve or things are and go back and check. so, congress would own at least but trajectory instead of it having a go and we would include tax expenditures any exemptions and exclusions, those that are about a trillion dollars worth of lost revenue. so, not sure we have the details figured out, but it's one of those ideas that builds off the project on here were a number of people came up with this idea to take more ownership of that portion of the budget. is there another question? yes, right there. >> my name's sister rachelle friedman and i work for the

coalition on human needs and i feel like whenever we talk about budget there is one big looming thing we don't acknowledge. there is a lots of very well-funded big efforts in this country and a whole group of people that believe we need a smaller governments. is therefore, we have a sense that this group loves it when people take a no new tax pledge. i'm not going to raise taxes. for many of us who work in the low income community, we know the safety nets are so critical to people in our nation that are really hurting and so i just want to say that it grieves me greatly that a lot of these well-funded efforts are making real headway into our governments and into people's minds even when i look at people who voted for our president-elect, and a lot of those people, i think, voted against their own best self interest and fed right into that

smaller government concept, but we need government to do some things that charities cannot do and that many people cannot do for themselves. >> question for the panel? >> i would appreciate any comment or feedback. >> i think that is such an important point is so often when we had these conversations about budget we divorce them from the actual people in the actual things that we are talking about and i think when that is done and this is what i meant my opening, i think that's a world when we are having a conversation that only an audience at the brookings institution understands where a world where the wealthy and well-funded groups can implement the process to the greatest extent when the american people don't really understand what's going on here. if the presentation instead was here's my idea to cut social security and medicare and safety net programs, i think the

american people of you that differently than here's my presentation on how to reduce the long-term debt, but they are functionally the same conversation. it's just when the american people understand and the other when they don't. i think that whenever we can make the budget conversation about real people, that is-- that's where they should be even when talking about process. the more it's about real people and to go to the point about that a lot of this low tax or note tax-- that it point i made earlier, right now, now we're te fifth lowest tax countries. by the way, some of the ones that are below us are like hong kong and singapore which are not terribly comfortable anyway. 30 year fiscal gap is 1.7 of gdp, so if we reduce the budget deficit by 1.7, that's the gdp

in 2046 and would be the same amount as now and if we did that deficit reduction entirely with tax tax increases our tax burden would be the sixth lowest out of the 35 advanced economies. so, not to say it's not going to be a meaningful change in tax burdens, but it is something not true that we can still have these programs of social security and medicare it's a relatively modest tax increase in context of other advanced countries. >> what concerns me is i don't think we can do this on the spending side or all on the backside. i think it will take both pretty much everyone knows that. what concerns me is that we don't want to have a process that allows one of two really bad outcomes. you can have low taxes and high spending. that's a bad outcome and you can have the opposite, but the trouble is we need to find a way

to match our spending and our taxes. what did the budget is about is saying to people if we want to have these programs and many of us do, then we have to be willing to pay the taxes to support it and if we are not willing to pay the taxes to support them then we have to accept less governments and what the budget process has allowed to happen is a divergent is getting that unsustainable thing and that's where i think-- that's for this exercise is about. people have different taste about whether they want a smaller government, lower taxes, bigger government, higher taxes, but we have to find a way to make that decision anyway that's more orderly. >> to concur with that, sort of people connecting to people is incredibly important, but people want social security and medicare and they also don't want a huge debt or huge taxes, so the question is how you have all those that together and on

your you can do it all on taxes, which i think you can, but i think the argument you gave was misleading because to stabilize the debt where it is today is twice what it stood on average in this country, so that might not be the fiscal goal everyone would hit, but i agree that revenue could get you there at some point. they would have to keep going up to keep up with healthcare. >> i don't need to advocate that that should be the solution and i agree especially you could make more progress on health care side. repealing the affordable care act would be going in opposite direction, but the point is even if you didn't entirely on the tax side, which i don't think you have to do, you can still sustain these programs scared there is no need to dismantle them. >> .com. i think we are all saying we want a budget process where those choices are transparent. >> i would say you need to-- that needs to be connected to what decision are you making a just setting a goal without saying and here's how we get

there disconnects one piece of this debt. on the question of how much debt reduction to do, when to do it, what the appropriate level of debt to gdp is, let's remember these are questions that very smart economists disagree on and there are reasonable arguments out there that a slower adjustment, so the debt to gdp ratio is actually the right course. there was a paper done on this point. other economists disagree, but i think that makes sense to hash out based on what people want and people if you asked them do you want to cut social security and medicare to reduce the deficit and unless you are one of the wealthiest americans you tend to say no. >> i will make one more comment because we are switching what we thought would be more of a democratic probably more the democratic white house one of

the things you often see his people arguing for different debt trajectories depending on the policies, so my guess is a lot of people that said it's okay to have a higher debt level when they thought it would come from more spending may not be as sympathetic if it comes from tax cuts and vice versa. fiscal policy is not above us. >> nonpartisan. >> across the board and we should try to remember everyone loves increasing the debt when it's for their favorite program. we have an expert who wants to weigh in. jim. i'm sorry just wanted to let jim -- >> i have a loud voice. >> but not for people watching on tv. >> just a technical issue on the proposal. on the procyclical audi, there are a number of ways that we would address that. first of all we would retain procedures for low growth and retain procedures for a

conflict, the ability to suspend any limits and furthermore, when we talk about everything being in play, we are not necessarily saying that any enforcement has to be across the board, some uniform percentage. we are not precluding congress from making decisions. some programs, you know, should not be proportionately addressed we are simply saying that everything should be part of the dialogue and the discussion on the budget. we shouldn't artificially pass a law and say some programs off budget as part of what we do and has an impact on capital markets work we are saying we should all be part of the discussion. on the debt target i want to emphasize the fact that by virtue of the fact that we have

highlighted these that targets, we are being neutral as to how congress gets there with the fiscal policy, what the mix of discretionary revenue changes are. we are not prejudging that. we are simply saying-- we are putting in a marker of that-- >> hold the microphone towards your mouth. >> okay. another thing, on-- when we talk about the debt limit, i want to point out that part of this proposal is that as long as congress and the federal government in a whole are within the targets established by law, there is no need to raise the debt limit, so it's going in the direction of what some of you have just advocated.

.. we were spending and revenue levels at what they are, and. current law perspective appropriations would be super obviously we don't think that's realistic.

we think it's a closer approximation of what current law is to leave it at what the most recent level that congress enacted. i think what's really important to look at is what we do on the mandatory side of the equation. and on the mandatory come with respect to the baseline, because all we are saying is, is that we should have parity in the baseline. you want it to reflect likely trajectory of what will happen if they don't change policy but you don't want to have in roles like we do now that have separate rules for treating revenue that expires and spending expires. in all we're saying is they are to be treated in a comparable basis. we do it one way. you could do it another way but we are simply saying that there needs to be parity. so there's not, i don't think there's really a bias in there.

in the last point is on the discretionary, the mandatory, all we are saying is that there should be the ability to address spending to the extent that you can on a comparable basis. mandatory and discretionary. we don't have the symmetry with mandatory's that we do now with discretionary. we are simply coming up with a device, this is similar to what gene steuerle and rudy penner have talked about. developing a process where we can look at mandatory spot an annual basis. it doesn't prejudge where we set that. we are not saying they have to be sent here as opposed to there. we are simply saying congress should have some comparable basis to be able to look at both sides of the equation. and for appropriations alumni, i

might point out in our process where many of these mandatory programs look, walk and talk like a discussion program, but their medical because they're funded outside the limits, we would hold those harmless. we are saying maybe those programs should be moved to the discretionary side that we are presuming to would be an adjustment in the resources for that. the point isn't to squeeze out those priorities. it's simply to put them in a box were as much as we can all funding as part of a set of trade-offs and the federal budget process. that i talk too much? >> we have negative time and store it for me to stand up. we will do quick answers. >> if we're going to a long-term about the budget, 20, 30 years as a good idea. shouldn't there be a limit to

what you're talking about and where the rubber hits the road? that's when congress looks at a bill does is a cost estimate of legislation to a 10 year window they now use, should they be asked to do maybe not the same kind of analysis in detail but something about the longer-term specialist anticipate the issues as a policy consultant that i work on. long-term care, retirement, i was going to give example of the class act, which was generated money for 10 years and then it blew up as a naturally sound program. >> you'll be happy with page 23, which has a rule against long-term spending and suggest cbo look out 40 years before it does any kind of increase in mandatory spending. i'm glad i won't have to do a 40 estimate of anything or cbo but the committee is thinking along those lines. >> let me add to that some alumnus of the cbo that should worry the and there is a long

history the further out you go the more uncertain the estimates become. so we have to be careful that we are not basing policy on bad numbers. >> i don't think cbo does that with the second decade estimates of things that particularly relevant and i think aca also, rather year by year because of this issue they will do a tenure lump sum store. >> okay. thank you so much to her audience for coming. thank you to our panel and thank you all. [applause] >> later today on c-span2 israel's defense minister speak at the brookings institution in washington, d.c. about politics and security in the middle east. wwe'll have that live at 6:30 p.m. eastern. at eight the or arguments from a

supreme court case on whether immigrants facing deportation can be detained for longer than six months without a bail hearing. the supreme court arguments tonight on c-span2 at eight eastern. >> we have a special webpage at c-span.org to help you follow the supreme court. go to c-span.org and select supreme court near the right and top of the page. ones on our page you will see four of the most recent oral arguments heard by the court this term. and click on the view all link to see all oral arguments covered by c-span. you can find recent appearances i've many of the supreme court justices or watch it justices in their own words including one on one interviews in the past few months with justices kagan, thomas and ginsburg. there's a calendar for this term, a list of all current

justices with links to quickly see all the appearances on c-span as well as many other supreme court videos available on demand. follow the supreme court at c-span.org. >> president-elect donald trump has picked a pair of retired generals for two top national security positions in his administration. james madison or defense secretary and michael flynn for national security advisor. general mattis provide insight into his defense strategy during house armed services committee hearing on national security in january of last year. >> is our intelligence community fit for its expanding purpose? today we have less military shock absorbers in our smaller military, celis ability take surprise in stride and fewer forward deployed portions overseas to act as signals.

accordingly we need more early warning. working with the intel community is a question if we are adequately funding the intel agency to reduce the chance of our defenses being caught flat-footed. we know the foreseeable future is not foreseeable. incorporating the broadest issues into your assessment you should consider what we must do at the national debt is assessed to be the biggest national security threat we face. as president eisenhower noted the foundation of military strength is our economic strength. in a few short years, however, we'll be paying interest on our debt and the will be a bigger bill that will pay today for defense. much of that interest money is destined to leave america for overseas. if we refuse to reduce our debt or pay down our deficit, what is the impact on the national security for future generations who will inherit this irresponsible debt and the taxes to services? no nation in history has maintained its military power

that failed to keep its fiscal house in order. how do you urgently halt the damage caused by sequestration? no fall in the field can wreck such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving today. congress passed it because it was it as so injurious that it would force wise choices. it has failed in that regard and today we use arithmetic by some thinking to run our government despite the emerging enemy threats. this committee must lead the effort to repeal sequestration. with unpredictable in budget matters no strategy can be implemented by your military leaders. in our approach to the world must going to ask strategic questions. in the middle east what our influence is at its lowest point in four decades, we see a region erupted in crises.

we need a new security architecture for the mideast built on sound policy, one that permits us to take our own side in this fight. crafting such a policy starts with asking a fundamental question and then the following questions. the fundamental question i believe is political islam in our best interest? if not what is our policy to authoritatively support the countervailing forces? violate jihadists harris cannot be permitted to take refuge behind false religious garb and leave is unwilling to define this threat with the clarity it deserves. we have many potential allies around the world and in the middle east who will rally to us but we have not been clear where we stand in defining or dealing with the growing violate jihadists terrorist threat. >> the president-elect said he will officially announce his nomination of general james mattis on monday. for the retired general to be confirmed congress would first

have to approve legislation by passing a law that bars retired military officers from becoming defense secretary within seven years of leaving active duty. >> this weekend at c-span cities tour along with our cox communications cable partners look in tempe, arizona. on booktv on c-span2 learn about man's relationship with wildfires and efforts to change the narrative of fire and its role in the environment with stephen pyne, a fire history of contemporary america. >> for 50 years this country after the great fire of 1910 which traumatized the u.s. forest service try to take fire off of the landscape. and the problem was that we took good fires as well as bad fires out. in the last 50 years which is rather a long time, half the history of our engagement, we tried to put good far back in,

and that has been very difficult. >> and hear from brooke simpson about the challenges of writing history. >> i'm the person who tells that story and i'm going to try to do it as best i can as closely as i can come as balanced as i can but i get to do something fundamentally created and saved this is what i think happened. >> then on american history tv on c-span3 hear about the lives of you senators barry goldwater and carl hayden through the collections of personal and political papers. >> when you look at carl hayden's career common people is really responsible for cosponsoring and writing a huge amount of legislation that benefited the citizens of arizona and citizens of the united states. and his legacy was very much a legislative legacy. barry goldwater was really a person who is an icon for the

western united states. he was a person who represented the interests of the west. >> and the curator of history at the tempe history museum shows us the contributions made to the cities are early history by charles hayden who is credited with founding tempe. >> charles hayden was originally born in connecticut. he comes out west during the course of his life, travels over the santa fe trail. he eventually makes it to arizona in the 1850s. >> the c-span cities tour. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> u.s. border patrol chief mark morgan and deputy chief carla provost testified before the senate homeland security committee earlier this week on efforts to improve border security and other priorities of

their agency. wisconsin senator ron johnson chairs the two hour and 10 minute hearing. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. this hearing of the senate homeland security government affairs committees is called to order. i want to welcome the witnesses. certainly thank you for your testimony and your time here today. the chief and the deputy chief of the u.s. border patrol. definitely interested in what you have to say. i decided to hold this hearing actually before the election as we were monitoring the renewed crisis. i don't think crisis ever went away, but certainly we haven't been seeing publicity about the unaccompanied children coming in from central america which was at the 2014 levels, which is not being publicized but you of course are having to deal with it. i think we want to highlight

that. and raised on the election i'm also encouraged by the fact i think will have an incoming administration that will be dedicated to securing the border which we must do. so i'll want to get your initial observations of where you think we are at in terms of border security. and some initial thoughts on what we need to do to actually secure the border and out of that commitment. i don't want to take a lot of time. we have a couple of charts just laying out the problem. the first is a chart history from 2009 through last fiscal year of the number of unaccompanied children that have come in from el salvador, guatemala, and honduras. and you can see prior to defer action on childhood initiative we were around three, 4000 unaccompanied children level. .12 we went to 10,000. 10,000 the deferred action on childhood emissions would implement it. all of a sudden we hopped at

1,051,700, back down a little bit and 2050 but we are up to almost 52,016 and starting monsoon 2017, it does not look encouraging you to. it's a real problem but is not the only problem because her second chart shows in addition to the incentives that we create in our love for unaccompanied children coming from central america, now we see families come as well. those numbers of people coming in as family units exceeded unaccompanied children. my concern is we are not publicizing it because the border patrol has been so humane and so effective at apprehending, processing and dispersing. so we've dispersed well over 100 way thousand unaccompanied children to all points in the u.s. we've got a chart for members to see where the 120 -- actually

about 130,000 unaccompanied children have been dispersed around the country. i've got member states yellowed so you can see how many unaccompanied children have been relocated to your states. that's the information we've got. i do ask unanimous consent a written statement be entered into the record. i do want to take this moment to thank senator ayotte for her dedicated service on this committee. i think i speak for all committee members we will definitely miss you and your participation in the committee and th the senate and we wish yu well in the next chapter of your life, in your next year. thank you for your service. and with that i would like to turn over to ranking member carper. >> just follow up. i was going to run into send out in a couple of our colleagues in the senate dining room with secretary mayorkas. i'm reminded just on the heels of what chairman has said about kelly. right after world war ii,

winston churchill you will recall was the prime minister of the country, and six months later the he lost reelection. he wa was not reelected in 14% o at the time, for you, mr. church, is this the end? he replied famously, this is not the end. this is not the beginning of the end. this is the end of the beginning. it's been a joy to serve with you. and thank you for your service. it's been great having on this committee. and for you, my friend, this is the end of the beginning. all right. with that having said that all have to say this morning. i have more to say than that. i want to start this plan by thinking you mr. chairman for bringing us together and witnesses for joining us today and take on tough jobs and will import jobs, our jobs, challenging jobs.

i'm impressed with you, i'm impressed with the folks you lead. i've been down to the border, and i look forward to being back there meeting with you in the not-too-distant future. it's been important issue for this committee, an important issue for me and pay attention to the time i've been chairman and ranking member of this committee. i think everybody certainly in this room than most people in this country want stronger borders. we've got a real problem. we want to keep terrorists out of this country. we also need to remain clear eyed about some of the other real risk and resolutions. i always like to focus on the real solutions to the root causes and how to address root causes. unfortunately, during this past campaign season, immigrants and refugees were too often unfairly attacked as a grave threat to our country. in many cases. we heard a lot about walls and deportations, and not enough about addressing the underlying

causes of the real immigration challenges that we face. as a result, many immigrants who have come to the united states from all corners of the globe are anxious that they will no longer be able to care for their families and contribute to our great country. this includes the 'dreamers' who were brought here as children, but are now fearful of being ripped from jobs and schools and deported to countries they may not even remember. i just don't think we strengthen our country by ignoring the contribution of immigrants or by turning our backs on refugees. helping vulnerable people is part of our moral fabric as a country. scripture teaches us that we have a moral imperative to the least of these in our society when i was a strange in your land did you take the end? and to treat other people the way we want to be treated. doing so also contributes directly to our economic strength. for generations, our open and diverse society has attracted immigrants of all backgrounds who have continually enriched our country and helped us grow and prosper.

the deeply troubling attack this week at ohio state university, where i was once a navy rotc midshipman, weighs heavily on the minds of many of us across this country. it reminds us that we must continue to be eternally vigilant. we must work hard to meet both our security challenges as a nation and our moral imperatives. indeed, i believe we can and must do both. before i highlight some of the tools that i believe can help better secure our borders, i think it's important to first recognize the significant strides we have already made along our southwestern border. thanks to a lot of people including the folks you lead. for years, we worried about large scale undocumented migration from mexico. now, experts tell us that net migration from mexico is less than zero. migration is less than zero. than men and women at custom for more protection deserve a lot of the credit.

perhaps the biggest factor for the change is a strengthened mexican economy. it helps usually. that is an important thing to keep in mind as we talk about whether to reopen trade agreements in the region. the surge we're seeing today along our southwestern border right now is a different challenge, and mostly a humanitarian one. thousands of children and families from el salvador, guatemala, and honduras, known as the northern triangle, are fleeing extreme violence and poverty in their home countries and seeking asylum in the united states. we are complicit in the misery. the chairman said this again and again, by virtue of our addiction to drugs. s&s drugs, we send them guns, money, and the people face lives of misery. they want to get out and they want to come to be safer. haitian migrants, including many who had been living and working in brazil until its recent economic decline, are another new concern. most of these migrants are

turning themselves in to agents, not trying to evade them so it's unlikely that we'll fix these current challenges with a wall or new border patrol agents. instead, we must address the root causes of this migration by helping the governments of el salvador, guatemala, and honduras improve the desperate conditions too many of their citizens face every day. i always talk about home depot. so the folks in those countries, you can do it, we can help. we can't do it for you. you've got to do it but we have an obligation to up because we are complicit in your ministry. i traveled to the northern triangle once again this past october, and saw real efforts being made by the governments there to address the extreme poverty, violence, and hopelessness that drive so many of their citizens to make the dangerous journey across mexico to our border. last year, democrats and republicans provided $750 million to support these countries as they work to address these difficult

conditions. i hope we can continue this bipartisan support. they've got to do their share. action that got to do a lot more heavy lifting them with you. if they do that we have an obligation. i believe it is cost effective and the right thing to do given that our addiction to drugs fuels much of the lawlessness and instability in the region. we also have to work with our international partners to crack down on smugglers and traffickers who exploit migrants. i have been impressed, for example, with the vetted units that i have seen during my trips to the northern triangle, where our agents and officers work side by side with foreign officers to target and break up criminal trafficking networks. of course, as the cartels become more sophisticated, we must also continue to evolve and take action here at home. that is why i have supported commonsense and cost-effective solutions to strengthen our border security and will continue to do so. that includes investments in advanced surveillance technologies, such as aerostats and drones, which if used effectively can be powerful force multipliers for our agents. it also includes some additional resources such as horses and

boats, which may not be as high-tech but can provide our agents with great visibility across the border. another commonsense solution involves fully staffing our ports of entry and making smart investments in our aging port infrastructure. finally, i would be remiss if i did not discuss how comprehensive immigration reform can also be a critical force multiplier. i believe it can be and should be and the idea of a desperate a lot of people down there, they don't want to come and live permanent. they would like to travel back and forth and go back home and live again. frankly they find it hard to get back and back up your again. so i think comprehensive immigration reform would help on that. as republican and democratic administration officials have testified over the years, immigration reform would create legal channels for migration and shrink the haystack of unauthorized travelers so that border agents can focus on the most serious security risks. comprehensive reform would also strengthen us economically.

according to the congressional budget office, it would provide a 5.4% boost in gdp, more than a trillion dollars, by 2033. we should all keep this in mind as we head into the next congress. ..

>> >> but she will be my ranking member apparently. >> i promise not to go far and serve with every betty. >> we also have members of the union and we appreciate their attendance as well as '' what -- working with them to make that commitment in 2017 and beyond. please rise and raise your right hand do swear the testimony is the truth so whole truth nothing but the truth so help you god? you may be seated. but first witness is mr.

morgan the current chief of u.s. border patrol u.s. customs border protection within the department of romance security. the first person from any outside agency to be appointed chief of the u.s. border patrol in 1986 became a special agent of the fbi during his tenure he held, numerous positions and with the full-blown biography that focused on the emerging presence of the of violent gangs in southern california ms 13 in the 18th street think -- a gain. >> good morning to ranking member car per and distinguished members of the committee thanks for the opportunity to talk to about u.s. border patrol during the first four months and

had the privilege to travel teeeleven sectors to be thousands of border patrol agents, staff and leadership from northern, southern and coastal borders as well as the academy headquarters here in washington d.c. the canine training facility in special operations with all of these interactions one thing was consistent and clear the men and women have one of the toughest jobs of law enforcement for the most unsalted law-enforcement in united states more than 4,000 have been assaulted since 2006 that rose in 2016 by 20 percent antedate increase of 200% of the previous year to date. is a dangerous job and since my short time here to agents of 40 been killed in the line of duty. faced with unforgiving

terrain and weather and resources and long weathers and adverse conditions and called upon above and beyond what they have been trained to do they are innovative with a can-do attitude they give of this country and of themselves and i am honored to be serving with them. our first and most important observation of refers four months there for we will continue to have been in advocate with the tools and training and resources and policies needed to do their job effectively and safely. over my 30 year career, duh team is unparalleled as we are committed to identify how we can get better and continue to revolve as an organization with the

challenges that we face. these are just a few areas that we need to look at moving forward. border patrol is the most valuable asset of diversity continuing to improve on our own paris-based and our strategy to increasing our situation awareness to evaluate current policies to protect carnations borders with the enforcement operations and increasing consequences for those crossing our borders to be in first the multilayer enforcement strategy to strengthen our situation awareness by continuing smart investments with personnel and operational assets the same investments need to continue to be priority as well.

with the mobile technology and a mobile workforce will strengthen our operations by expanding - - expanding our strategies and marine operations and integrated operations with our partners domestically and international. we need to focus on targeted expansion or document exploitation and these capabilities we need to identify personnel needs across the spectrum of classification to ensure we have a correct balance of agents and staff and intelligence analyst we need to focus to determine alternatives with the allocation of resources with the border role is being asked to do. with a proactive

communications strategy with internal and extra-large partners and stakeholders to enhance the performance major extra reflect the efforts of border strategy. as we move forward all that will enhance the ability to respond to threats along the nation's borders will afford to share our efforts in the future and thank you for the opportunity to testify today in accord to your questions. >> next witness is the current deadbeat chief provost in the department of romance security. did you do chief provost the first woman to be appointed in the 92 year history and in her 20 year career she has held nearly every position in the u.s. border patrol including the chief agent please proceed.

>> ranking members and distinguished members it is a privilege to be here today along side chief morgan. is the proud moment for me as it is my first appearance at a congressional hearing representing the men and women of the u.s. border patrol. today marks one month of my current position as deputy chief vice spent the majority of my professional career, nearly 22 years the with border patrol during that time i have seen quite an evolution and turn on duty 1995 as an agent in the field i worked alongside my colleagues to address threats from illegal immigration smuggling, trafficking and terrorism by interdicting materials because also significantly involved with

corporations against four different sectors instructing agents to directing the sector budgets their lesson by thousand agents nationwide but i came on board in the correction tape was worth its weight in gold but we apprehended 1. 3 million people on the southwest border alone and issue can imagine back then it was common for the border to be little more than a barber wire fence we relied on the 1960's era -- aircraft for support and defend the year 2000 more than 1.6 million

apprehensions nationwide with renewed, focus on securely and the tragedy of 9/11 only intensified the commitment. as i progress so did the border patrol who began hiring agents in earnest growing our presence dramatically not only did it increase are situational awareness but also impacted local business and economy. many border cease to veer our old with new technologies and night vision of in video surveillance began to improve our capabilities and pepper ball launching systems gave new approaches to enforce things to congress period we want receive strategic locations of many of those already in existence here in washington i led the use of force center of excellence

dedicated to optimize the safety readiness and accountability and operational performance of law enforcement personnel by articulating policy to supply the highest quality education and training to agency officers. i also served as the deputy of the office of professional responsibility overseeing compliance with all programs and policies related to misconduct and integrity awareness. i am proud to have the opportunity to bring my field experience and perspective to the headquarters of afford to working with you and all of my colleagues at border patrol and our partners to enhance our operation to protect our nation's borders with the public that we serve think he for the opportunity to testify today i look forward to your questions.

>> i will start the questioning. chief market i am concerned about the continued flow of unaccompanied children for a host of reasons. because we have not ended the incentives for people to come into the country illegally children continue to take a very dangerous journey through mexico and lives are lost man are perpetrated as the children become victims. in talk how the flow of unaccompanied children over stresses your resources and distracts from your other mission. >> i refer to the involvement with the family unit as a humanitarian at this point. we know that basically of

t.s. is about 63 percent of our apprehensions just speaking beyond those family units alone is about 43 or 44% of the overall apprehensions. alone probably closer at 50 percent that is the exorbitant amount of resources and funding to sustained operations knowing that one had depressant of those units are released into the united states. that is why i call that a humanitarian mission. i will refer back to midnight one evening was in a sector where i saw an 11 year-old holding at the hand of a sexual making the trip from honduras for idol see them as a threat but the border patrol is dedicating a tremendous amount of resources to take them in and process and a lot are

dedicated with professional child-care providers at this point. and we just established a second processing center each one takes about 120 agents dedicated basically 100% to processing these family units, and unaccompanied children we opened a temporary facility to help with that that comes at a high cost as well to run that facility to provide the resources for recently the supervisor that was in charge said we will do whatever the country asks us to do but i never thought in my 20 years i would be as part of the procurement to

order baby powder and baby wipes and one agents' jobs during the day was actually to major that the food that is provided is more properly because it takes a tremendous amount of resources to do this. >> talk about the realities of the border if you have 50 accompanied children and family members or how they used as a diversion for higher value smuggling or sex trafficking isn't that the reality quick. >> guess. absolutely smugglers use that as a distraction. yes are. again, the resources are impacting as the chief of the border patrol i am comfortable to say the mission of a humanitarian mission with the 20 units impacts our ability to

perform our mission of national-security t use those agents away from the border. >> back in july 2014 german car per called the hearing on this and he said heidi change the mindset that i want my kid to stay here to have a future? how do we do that? i think that is the right question how do stop the flow? and we do have some difference of opinion as a way to stop the flow per god love to improve those conditions but i am also talking about the pull factor not just the push factor we see of the children that come here and accompanied in 2013 through now alleys the last three years we are returning less

than 4%. this is the reality if you you, as of unaccompanied child into this country. by the way you can just walk across to turn yourself in your opry handed them processed then they have access to social media so then they realized the increased incentive to take the dangerous journey so isn't that the enormous problem? >> yes, sir. talk about push pull we go back a little while 90 percent those that were apprehended were mexican nationals now they are 36 percent. why? because a couple of things with a dramatic decrease one is a delivery system make

couple of things that happened that the institute the individuals knew when they came they were held and then move to. they knew that that serves as a strong deterrent. >> i will interrupt you so mexicans or canadians such talk about the difference between mexicans or unaccompanied children from south america. >> what is happening with uac and family units from central america is the same thing bad right now they know if they make it to the border they will be released into the united states. generally that is done with the notice to appear. but reprocess those in hand them over to the next agency and told them and then that is done but that is the reality.

they come to the border so that sends a strong message to those that if you get to the border we will let you win. >> if we go back to that process of expedited removal whiff humanity take a back -- we would dramatically reduce the incentive and the flow. would you agree quick. >> yes, sir, that is why use the mexican national example we use the same process it was 90 percent down a 36% since 2006 we reduce that pull factor by instituting the system of consequences of expedited removal. >> we had a surge from brazil and secretary chertoff at the time expedited removal and the surge ended is that correct greg. >> guest in 2005 we did have a surge from brazil we had received expedited removal

starting the year prior when we deliver the consequence of the expedited removal and then the physical removal we did see ed decrease. >> by time has expired. >> thanks for your testimony and your leadership. we need secure borders and well equipped well-trained probably the best we have ever had. and the most expensive to support those thousands of people that are under your meter ship. i want to tell a quick story

three counties in arizona one that john mccain represents the was there for one of his campaigns and we raise more chickens and process any more chickens than any other so we have a big guatemalans presence in this county but two years ago there is a place and then tried to provide some assistance for them. when i meet with them they talk about the teenage boy to have arrived with his sister and told me the story

that when he was 13 years old he was approached by a gang in guatemala announced a few wanted to join and he said let me talk to him my parents and they said no. so they approached them again a couple weeks later are you ready to join he said atop with a parent's bid is not something i want to do they did not receive this very well a couple weeks later they said heavy change your mind they said no if you don't then somebody will die in your family. so he joined. couple months later as the initiation one of the ax is he had to rape abuses 13 year-old sister as the initiation he he went home and told his parents and

they said you're out we will get you out of this country. pdf we want them to be out into a safer place if that was us. one of our witnesses with a bishop from el paso texas share this analogy and talked about the fire department that came into the house to set the house on fire and then locking the doors. that is the analogy that he used and the reason they have that violence down there is so large part because of our addiction to drugs and they come to our borders. so what do we do about that?

we have great representation and we can always do more. for those assets are the walls are the fence or the variables or wealthy unmanned aircraft but when you have a country that 15,000 businesses are started in a single year in this country and frankly and others that are shut down because of extortion those are the losers and those types of threats that has to be part of the solution as well. and 20 years ago senator mccain will recall colombia's it did not have the u.s. to come down to say you have a problem and fix it and we will help you because of the addiction to cocaine at the time.

having said that, there is a reason that i think she mention your first year on the job as a border patrol agent 1.3 million coming across the borders into custody. and get used to be in it was mexican but now more are leaving banc going in. what more we could make the haystacks smaller or the needles bigger. so give us some advice. particularly with a guest worker program and then they go back legally.

>> first of all, definitely we support that as you just alluded to a couple of examples. >> comprehensive immigration reform there are definite push factors violence and family reunification, those are all true and i agree with that but from the united states border patrol perspective looking at the facts and when we do institute that system we do see we can show that over the years we need to have the discussion about a drop in policy in one credible fear is that we know right now that smuggled orient monday organizations are

using credible fear to coach individual specifically on what to say when they come here they rattle off and magic -- and say the magic word so they fall in the statute of credible fear. we think that is being exploited and going well beyond the or original intent by the example that you just used that is what credible fear is used for absolutely bill we know that is exploited. that is one thing we can do to look at those policies with cir to see if there are just as the need to be done going forward. 2000 through 2013 less than 1% was credible fear but today it has continued to rise.

but going back, of reno that it is a pull factor and they are communicating it does not matter if you get here you will be be the east say the magic words but you'll still be led into the country. we need to have a of a discussion to make sure we really apply that where it is needed going forward and that needs to be part of the facilitated discussion. >> i am not a time i have said this before but there is no silver bullet some are bigger than others. >> i appreciate the well attended hearing so let's keep it at seven minutes senators as well as answers that the seven minutes everybody can have a chance to ask questions.

>> i appreciate you having the hearing today because it is the perfect time for the committee for you and the deputy chief provost we appreciate what you'd do everyday. to raise certain extent you are working under constraints for you to do your job. i will change the topic a little bit with some of transnational criminal organizations and as you notice congress has signed legislation one of the original coauthors has just joined us it is important ground breaking legislation. we have had other witnesses with the importance of reducing the demand for prevention education with

prescription drugs off the shells. that is an opportunity over the next couple of days to put more money into those efforts. but there is a huge issue with these folks coming across the of border. we have the opportunity to increase the price of better enforcement showing we will only stop a one-and-a-half percent or 2 percent coming across of border recently we had testimony indicating pdf 100 percent of the heroin in 90 percent of the cocaine is coming across of border much from mexico even methamphetamines coming across the border from mexico. so my question to you is what can you do better to stop these drugs?

stop some of these consequences which not only add to crime in this country but make the other governments of mexico and colombia much more vulnerable to corruption. frankly if you look at these numbers their increasing not decreasing. they are my statistics but we are only stopping wonder 2% of the drugs coming over the border. is that accurate? >> first and foremost, i would say if you mentioned the amount coming across we track everything we apprehend and you are correct the numbers of methamphetamines of marijuana and heroin and crack cocaine we use the resources that we can to the

best of our ability to detect and apprehend whether at the border or border patrol agents with the multilayer approach. we use those resources inch -- resources to improve the training for our agents. that being said the unknown is a difficult thing to measure. we know that our numbers so far here today has spent trending down except methamphetamines compared to fyi 2016. >> that concerns us.org is of an increase of the overdose death 120 people die per day in my home state of ohio alone.

and this is the source of the biggest increase of heroin. bois also the synthetics and fentanyl although you hear a lot about at as well but you said you are apprehending less but yet we see more to our community. >> that is just through the beginning the numbers are down slightly but trending very close across the board to last year. wendy talk about the difficult number to determine with that being said with those resources that we have to the best of our ability as we focus over my entire career with border patrol we have many more tools now than we have with

our capacity of k. nine officers utilizing these resources. >> my time is sending you say you are using every resource at your disposal of my understanding you have not ask for help from the duty operations in terms of monitoring and transporting some of the drugs because illegally by air across the of border so why are you not accessing these resources that our available before greg. >> redo have a dialogue to continue that operation and from my perspective i agree. we need the help xx need additional resources quick. >> yes. that is important for this committee to hear because i

don't know if it is the 2 percent but it is a very small number. your using all resources you have that the detection capabilities are not working to stop this flow the then again ultimately the key error is on the demand side but we have to do a better job. >> i agree. it goes to the threat based approach as well so we need to increase our network strategies with our domestic partners and work with international partners with mexico as well to take the fight to the enemy. but we need to get better. >> if you would submit to writing what you need from the coastguard or a the military in terms of other

resources like the a and other federal agencies to be helpful to make progress on increasing apprehensions. >> could i just mentioned the requirement to use drowns right now they are flying out of arizona and you're not coordinating with them it is crazy because of that climate to to coordinate with the military to use those drums things are not improving as far as mexican heroin is concerned it is an epidemic just because it is slightly better is unsatisfactory. >> chief martin, -- morgan in a moment i will put this

to a question i hope you can answer but to that fact i have spent hearing the senator from the state of wisconsin and reading reports of a significant escalation of harassment and bullying and those of directed to immigrants or muslims are other minorities in is disgusting to hear my constituent accounts with the southern and poverty law center that is tracking some of those hateful incidents. in the weeks after the recent election that anti-immigrant for those

common type of harassment reported. is in my home state i have received communications from a wide number of individuals from tomahawk wisconsin that while in school my a sign he was adopted was approached by a classmate to approach his bags from mexican mother was a documented family in wisconsin the lennar shoots the family that includes 11 adopted children from the u.s. and china and donna had they went home to say the race wars are on. it isn't only happening in

wisconsin that across the country and it is deeply concerning to meet goes against the values that we will the americans. i have also heard from constituents in the immigrant community about the very real fear of potential anti-immigrant policies under the incoming administration. for example, effort from legal green card holders they are afraid to travel in the next few months because they fear that they may be turned away or subject to additional scrutiny when they return to the united states. so i want to ask you in connection with helping to reassure my constituents that to that that determines

immigration status. i would like to hear about the training that year officers received on the treatment of individuals and the border patrol custody including harassment and discrimination. >> first of all, everything you describe goes against everything i personally believe as well as being an american i agree 100 percent. with the u.s. border patrol what we are doing and how we do that will not change and that what we haven't operated under when we will change freewill change but right now we'll understand the law and the policies and the border patrol will come

forward there will not be a change. and if there is but as far as the training at the academy we have one of the best leaders and personally i've had numerous conversations with them in my former life i was assistant director with the academy as well and things were talked-about as well. those are critical things when we focus on those.org you provide any additional detail other than those brought comments greg. >> know i cannot go on to specific topic areas but i can provide that in a follow-up. >> okay.

fet understanding is the u.s. border patrol is currently 50 percent over capacity in those holding facilities. understand you are in the process of building additional temporary facilities which will continue to provide medical attention, clothing and other resources to win and children and particular. in addition to service sizer of the homeless securities subcommittee of the appropriations committee and with that and mind can you speak to what resources are currently needed with regard to dealing with over capacity issues? >> actually we set up at 500 bed capacity right now but it comes at a high cost we are positioned to open more and other areas with

overflow and some areas are along the southwest border are more than 100 percent capacity. so places like the temporary facilities like to reno to deal with the overflow thomas at a high cost. really it is a child-care professional stuff we're doing to make your that they can sleeper get their meals during the day for that data set snacks and emil's are warm that everything we should be providing a child or the mother and father that is what we are doing but as the numbers continue to increase our capacity is strange that we have to go to extreme measures to make sure we do the right thing. >> senator? >> thank-you chairman.

i want to follow up with the questions asked about what that we focus on the armed services committee in terms of working with our leaders to enhance their resources for introduction there because those networks can be used to traffic anything so it is a national security issue as well. can you tell me what is it that would be the most helpful to you of increasing our enemy -- ability to interdict one. that we have seen in my state as well. >> it has then described by every bed we here we have to

domestically and international partners to take the fight to them if they make it to the border that is a loss we have to strengthen that intelligence apparatus. >> as i understand it on the armed services committee with the role of a the military and their role the amount of intelligence they get is overwhelming. with the stuff that we get we have to continue to strengthen that we will do that we just need to get

better. >> senator hide campaign and i actually have the review act that passed bathhouse last night and we are appreciative of that but at the northern border state for timmy this is important as wall so are you familiar with the northern border security review act? with a sure view to the potential issue of the northern border? i know they impact national-security. what is your assessment and what is your view and what would be helpful? >> a think the act would be helpful in and into further the dialogue with the open border is a good thing. i am trying to use the right adjective we had this

discussion yesterday but i am concerned the threats that are posed so what has to be narrow how we talk about that but that threat based intelligence approach we need to have to make sure we are focused on threats not just the numbers the introduction rate that we know i don't think that is a great measure if we with that output of the measure and we can focus and first and foremost, and not just

dawned that activity in many to strengthen that we appreciate you do for the country. >> first of all thanks for your job that you do with an awesome responsibility isdn been humble gratitude but then job that you are doing is fundamental to the safety began the greatest threats we're facing as a nation and those most dogged issues from drugs to terrorism and your the frontlines but in addition over 1,000 foreign officers of first responders

and what they face every single day unrelenting abuse that officers face again to express the appreciation if you talk about assaults to officers that is very frustrating to me by one to make sure my colleagues agree to reach out to support the mission that is central to success with the well-being of your officers and to give them the resources that they need but one thing if with my time as

mayor i did not build up the sets of metrics, officers were interacting with of public and the aclu was making allegations i did not believe was true about racial profiling or treatment but we were arguing over things that we could measure to the same values of conduct of first responders. the 21st century taskforce urges federal law-enforcement agencies to analyze that demographic data and added that to law-enforcement agencies whiff to post on the website about reported crime of the

data that is aggregated mom once i began to make it public he don't collect data on the stops to know who you are pulling over with those racial demographics me to compile that data to cover over 6,000 pages including racial profiling but only one case has resulted n disciplinary action. but with all this evidence with very little disciplinary action to shine light using objective data. public like to know why

party doing this in a transparent white?

>> but is set then deadlines and thailand's? to see that deputy chief also it is for the representation of women but is important to address in reno what is happening in arizona with the federal ruling with the analytics once we have them detained that don't reflect our common value as -- values. >> touching on the data collection one with the office of professional

responsibility we have spent working diligently with operations to improve the transparency the was one of the commissioners priorities for go there it is a lot of improvements on data collection with the sheer size of the organization we are working on this together something we realize we need to improve upon in relation to any other complaints to expand as well with the investigations so was the chief mentioned if the use

of force has decrease to the last couple of years so with the work of of public in general that there is need for improvement and the of border ritual in us 20 years that being said with the office of human resource management to take a lot of steps to improve to seek out more women that are interested in is very different work from much other law-enforcement work and an area we have struggled with to increase our number of women and puerto rico making strides in this area.

>> thanks for being here today i am encouraged of the engagement with dod to increase these efforts to expedite that hiring as they leave the service and while i support your efforts at the job assistance center i am very much aware to overlap those federal employment programs and therefore with the colleagues in the senate including senator john mccain is us sponsor of border jobs to major any

efforts on this front achieved uh goal of recruiting outgoing service members. we really believe in this will help solve the of fragmentation or the overlap in these programs. can you please provide the details call it is engaging with the retiring or transitioning service members? >> pdf i guess current and former marine did this of great program we should give you more details but i can tell you they won the award this year with the counterparts with positive benefits they are increasing the recruitment events across the country and a couple of other things

they're looking at in detail with reciprocity. physical fitness do you really need to have them go through that? we look at reciprocity for a polygraph some there is a lot of initiatives to increase that. >> can i make a point? it takes 18 months? right? to receive the clearance to be employed by border patrol >> as improved dramatically. >> why can they better not immediately e be hired if they have already gone through the screenings? >> that is exactly what they are looking at. >> was due more than look at it. that is outrageous.

do it. >> absolutely. that is fine. the point is very well taken with a huge number of qualified personnel leaving us service that is fit to go into a border patrol with the extreme lifestyle that you engage and with with men as well we haven't great number of phenomenal women better x sitting services -- that is xing. >> will you yield for one moment quick. >> with the clarification to be outrageous you say improving dramatically to what extent? >> i am not sure exactly but i think we're looking at under one year. >> comeback to a.

>> could digesting cajun colloquy if someone is leaving the of military has already clarence why couldn't you hire that person immediately? why would it take a one year? >> looking at it is not the right word but to actively pursue initiatives to make that happen. the vast majority of folks don't the sincerity have those backgrounds but the point is taken they are actively pursuing every opportunity to expedite that respite -- reciprocity. . .