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. . .

we want to see active engagement and progress in this area. if there is a way we can engage and do a better job at that, we need to. thank you. i like to thank my committee members for engaging in that discussion as well. chief martin, i would like to go back, you had acknowledged earlier in this hearing, a number of the ua are released into the interior of our country which is concerning. i have grave concerns about how our government handles those uac's once they cross the border, and i will give you a very specific example. there was a uac who came across the border.

he went on to kill a young woman, sterile route who is from iowa and we learned that hhs had lost track of him once he had been released to his brother. this gentleman has gone on to who knows where, we are uncertain where this person is, and unfortunately, the family the family has not been able to see seek justice. it is hard to say whether they will be able to see justice in their lifetime. she was unfortunately had her life cut very short. i understand the difficulty of the problem we have when it comes to pulling factors and i would like to make sure that we are addressing those pull factors that we will pull others in our nation but i also want to look at those push factors too. you've identified a number of reasons out there, drug intervention is one paired we have people consuming drugs in the country, they are getting

drugs into our country. we do have many counter drug training centers all across the united states. one is in dodge iowa for the midwest region. can you speak a little bit bit to the involvement of our iowa national guard and the national guard throughout the country, the air and army in the drug programs? is that beneficial to your organization? >> it kind of goes back, i think anytime we can leverage our national guard or military assets, it's a a good thing. we were able to do that and it has been a positive impact. >> very good. that is something you believe we should continue to invest in? >> yes, ma'am. i forget what sector i was at, i was talking to one of the pilots that was a national guard pilot as well. we had a really good dialogue. i'm not sure i was supposed to say that. he had a really good dialogue

and what he talked about was, he actually felt that the national guard members, he wasn't sure who got more out of it. if it was border patrol or the pilots. it truly is a win-win. >> very good. i appreciate it. we had a very lively discussion. thank you for your time. certainly there are things we need to do better as congress. we need to know what those things are and how we can enable you. thank you very much for your time and attention. >> senator peter. >> thank you very much. thank you to both of our witnesses for your service to our country and your work. it's a difficult job that you have and i know both of you are new to the position but you're also very seasoned so you've hit the ground running. i think you for that. we spoke a little bit before the hearing and i'm particularly impressed by the fact that

you've spent so much time in the field. i'm sure that perspective you bring from the field will be very much appreciated at headquarters and appreciated by the men and women who are in the field each and every day. thank you both for what you do. chief morgan, i know at the as you have been diving into this job, you have been focused on making it a priority to visit patrol offices across the country. i hope that will be a priority for you to get to michigan and the northern border which represents a number of unique challenges and certainly every region of the country we can all talk about our unique challenges, but one in particular for us is the great lakes environment in michigan and the fact that we have seasons in winter, and in fact from previous hearings, talking about protecting the maritime environment, when you have thick eyes cover, you can then walk across larger parts of that border.

even if the ships have icebreakers, they won't have that kind of monitoring system so there are some unique challenges for i'm sure you will learn more about that. are you planning to go to michigan soon soon? >> good. it's good to be in the winter so you can see the ice. the other thing i wanted to pick up on briefly and pick up on senator baldwin and booker's concern, certainly i hear those concerns in my community. michigan is a very diverse state, there's a large latino population. there are some real concerns that i have heard as well, those who are fearful about what the future might may hold for them, it's a real concern that we need to deal with, but i've also heard from my stakeholders, particularly those in the debate from southeast michigan around detroit where we have very large concentrations of folks from all

over the world. they've also been very appreciative of the border patrol and the close communication that they have with the local sector chief at these meetings. i understand it, long way to building trust. there have have been some very positive things that have come out of that and so they asked me to encourage you to continue that kind of open dialogue and get some feedback as your starting this position, how do you see that kind of communication continuing with sector chiefs and are there other things you would like to see that we can go further in? >> yes, sir. absolutely. back at headquarters we are starting a new unit called strategic medications. it's really all things communications, both internal and external. there's a phrase, it's harder to heat up) we have to get out there. our leadership has to get out there.

i've gone around 211 sectors of many stations and there's a path that's out there that's leading the way. the agents that are out there, it's not just the leadership read you go there and it's an individual relationships that the agents have with the ranchers, with the community. goes so far. the more we talk, the more we see positive things. i will continue to encourage that. >> i like to hear that. if we can be be engaged when you come to michigan we would like to do that. perhaps we can help you connect with groups of individuals who would love to have the opportunity to meet you personally and have a discussion about some of their experiences. if we can have facilitate that, we would appreciate that. >> yes there. i think that has been some of

the most informed discussion ipad, sitting down and breaking bread with the ranchers and talking to the community, absolutely. community, absolutely. will absolutely do that. >> i appreciate that. >> i also want to pick up on the northern border review act. it has passed through both the house and the senate and chief morgan, you you mentioned some aspects of what we are concerned about to make sure the resources are being appropriately allocated both to the southern border and the northern border. you talked about the northern border strategy and we have to have a threat -based approach and look at that and not just the numbers. i would like you to talk to that a little bit more or dive in a little bit deeper in the fact that i know you have resource constraints, he had to be in both places and you have long borders, the northern border is longer than the border we have in the south, how, how is that

being done now and your idea that we need to be more focused on threat-based issues, how do you see that changing. is there anything we need to do here at the congressional level to help you make those kind of informed decisions to ensure we have proper resources both in the south and in the north? >> yes, sir. there's a couple things going on right now. there's the one initiative we have called the c gap and basically what that is is a pretty decent process that were going through that should tell us where our resources are needed regardless of only numbers. were looking at it in a holistic approach. russell doing this thing on personnel at prd. it's a system to to look at our personnel needs on a series of factors. then were reviewing that, challenges that i have is that i find the systems to be a little bit too much focused on the

activity-based, meaning numbers. i am asking questions about those to make sure that we are pushing that. somehow, i use that analogy of the hundred thousand dollars six -year-olds and the hundred thousand drug dealers, the way we measure that right now, the output is the same. we really need to address adjust that and look at the so what of those numbers. when you look at the numbers, they they are relatively low apprehensions. we need to make sure that we are looking at in a different way, reframing that it's not just about numbers. that's going to be a cultural shift for the organization, but we need to make sure were doing that going forward. i think one thing that can help, when we start talking about personnel, i think what we did in the past a little bit, and i'm concerned that we shouldn't do it the same, were only thinking about badge towers. when we start taking a look and having a discussion about the personnel, we also, i had that my comments, the kind of

personnel. i think we need some more intelligence analysts as well to help us frame out that intelligence driven approach so our needs aren't always just border patrol agents. not saying we don't need more border patrol, but we definitely need other demographics as well. >> thank you both for your service. i appreciate you being here today. one of the problems that border protection has is that it was on the list of the worst places to work. have you been initiating any programs to bring that up. >> the fed survey, the federal employee survey, i think that just scratches the cert service.

that's a single narrow data point which we need to utilize. what we did is we came up with a human capital survey team. we brought a company from the outside in and went out to 13 sectors and talk to 900 people, the sector chiefs and really did a deep dive and we brought back leaders and we did a deeper dive to really hear what they were saying and what their concerns are. from that we've developed several recommendations and actually, the emails on my desk is waiting for that e-mail to go out to the workforce numerator what those recommendations are and how we are going to put action teams together to act on that. we are also looking at, i'll give you an example. the pay. that's hard. the more i learn about that, i just shake my head. what we are trying to do is where we can, influence change, influence change, i'll give you an example. k-9.

so i get in there, i think border patrol does it right. they take the dogs home. they become bonded. the dog is better, the handlers better. we say yes, take them home, that's a home, that's a good thing. then we don't pay them for the time they spend taking care of their dogs at home. i don't think that's right. right now it takes a legislative change to get that. that's something we need your help on to get that change but that's just one example of what were taking a look at. >> we worked on the pay issue before them we can work on it again. as you look at the overall structure, do you believe the top management versus the folks on the ground, that you have the right ratios? >> i'm hesitant to use the word take a look at. four months, i am taking a look at that. i've talked to the union about that as well. they have echoed their concerns about that ratio so i've collected data on that. >> okay. and so, we've talked a little

bit about staffing on the northern border and i think the process that you go through to hire folks can be pretty long and cumbersome. do you have any recommendations to expedite that process? >> think that is really probably something we need to bring back our human resource people to give you the details. they have done an incredible job. they have cut that in half. >> back at the time in half already? >> yes sir. >> they develop these hiring hubs. instead of five different locations, you go to one spot and knock out six steps in the process. my suggestion is we need to do more of that. we need to look at stuff like the military and look at where we can do reciprocity and stuff like that. another thing i would say is i think the best recruiter for the

united states border patrol agents is a united states border patrol agent. >> i agree with that. >> they did that and they did a darn good job of that. i'm dedicated to make sure we have more resources to hire more border patrol agent. >> okay, so there's a number people on the northern border here, north dakota, montana and montana and other places, we have a hard time keeping folks. it's the best place in the world to live, people just don't know that. the question is, when you've come, do you have a plan to recruit in some of those more frontier areas? you're going to go shoot a pretty good size envelope and go fishing on some pretty good streams. you have a recruitment plan for those areas? >> whenever this job ends, i think i may move over there. >> we will put you to work if you do. >> so we are working with hr where we can get better focused

recruitment events, where should we be going and. >> can i make a suggestion? >> you got a ton of of small schools and big schools on the northern border. a lot of people don't know about the opportunities you have imported protection and quite frankly, if you were able to get a hold of those counselors and make appearances, you're going to get people that not only lived there, but want to live there to do the job you do. like you said, if you can have other people that wear the uniform go up and talk to these kids about the opportunities, i think you would be quite successful. states like montana, we serve the military at a higher rate than just about any other state% capita. north dakota has probably had a bus. at any rate, solve that problem. stone garden grants. we talked a little bit about this yesterday. he talked about how important they are. how deficient is the budget right now? is a 25% less than it should be,

is it about where it needs to be or is it too high. >> i don't know. i haven't done a deep enough time. i can say, when i've gone out to every single sector, southern, northern border, it is just resounding from the chiefs and sheriffs participating in that program. they want more. i need to do a deeper dive for me to be able to personally tell you that. what i'm hearing from the sector chiefs and their involvement in the program, they want more. >> another question along those same lines, because you've got farmers and ranchers on that property and they know it as good as the back of their hand. does your agency have an outreach program to them to make sure they're on board? i can give you an example. ten years ago i got this job. we went up to the northern border and there wasn't a very

good relationship. that has changed over the past ten years. is there outreach being done to those farmers and ranchers so they know they are appreciated and they can be the eyes and ears to help you out? >> from my perspective, from what i've seen, i can absolutely say yes. i've seen the agents that are on the line and the relationships they have with those folks. i've seen it firsthand. is there always room for improvement? sure, absolutely. for also doing citizen academy type things were bringing people in, but yes, sir. >> just in closing, i would say this. i think this committee and the appropriations committee are very open to make sure you have the resources you need to keep this country safe along the northern and southern border. we just need to have the information. when it comes to recruitment, when it comes to whether we have the technological manpower

resources, we have to have that information and it's got to be good information otherwise we will make bad decisions. so, i don't know what you are allowed to do, but do what you can do so people know what the challenges are on both birders. >> thank you. >> thank you both for all the ongoing service that you've had for a long time. a whole series of questions on a multitude of issues and i'll try to get there as many as i can. chief, you have been there six months now and you lavishly made a lot of progress and you're looking at a lot of things at this point and we appreciate that very much. before you came in, about five months before, in january of this year, the inspector general put out a report on the special operations group program. it was budgeted at 8 million came in at 33 million in the inspector general came back and said there's no metrics that are attached to it were oversight measures for the special operation group. are you familiar with that report? if you are, can you comment on it. if you aren't, can you follow up on it and what progress is being made. >> i'm not and i will follow-up. >> fair enough. in your statement that you put in, you made a comment.

it was kind of an offhand comment frankly, but it was interesting. you mentioned volunteer return and you put in the least effective consequence about voluntary return. can you give me additional detail about that. >> voluntary return, if you look back in time, basically what that was was just that. we would apprehend summary at the border and say okay, go back. back in the day what that meant. [inaudible] >> what's the alternative and is that something we need to fix in statute? >> i think statutory l lee, i guess we could have a dialogue to remove that.

>> it has been a concern and there's been a lot of dialogue about it. they're coached on what terms to use whether it's fear or asylum, all those different things. they're able to cross right back over the border and move a mile down the road and come back and get picked up again. how many times do think that should be allowed? you know you are dealing with person that is aware there's a board of their, there are where cross the border illegally and should they be able to do that 20 times, five times, three times. >> from a border perspective, not ever. the first time he crossed the should be some sort of consequence that leads to a deterrence. >> i would just echo what the chief is sang. we do utilize much more now which has been a huge benefit for us having that ability over the last decade.

>> you both mentioned at the beginning your concern about terrorism and terrorist activities. we've talked a lot about human smuggling and drug smuggling. you mention some of the things about terrorism in your opening statement at an opening statement can you give us additional detail. >> it's a challenge and an unclassified setting, but i will go back to that approach and why it's so important to have that approach. we spent a lot of time talking about uac's and family units. again, i don't see that six-year-old at midnight as a national security threat. i go to the northern border for example, there are things where it's open source. we know there are individuals that are self radicalized. we know there are connections to international terrorist organizations that are open source. it's that type of threat that

concerns me so when you're dealing with our matrix and our strategy, again, not only do we have to talk about the numbers, that will always be a component, but we need to focus on that threat. what i can say is there are threats out there that concern me. >> let me dig a little deeper. you been asked a couple times about what you need and you said partnerships and cooperation. i'll take that down to the next level. what does partnership mean to you? is that additional personnel to format partnership in relationship, is that co-locating in situations, is that materials, what is needed when you talk about additional partnerships and corporations. >> all of that. >> i know senator portman had mentioned to you, his request, let me add to it as well, can you spit back to us in writing,

for us to be able to do our job effectively, we think we need this. that gives us greater clarity. even when we talk about technology needs, there's been a true name true tremendous amount of expectation with technology and aviation. whether it's unmanned or multiple platforms, trying to figure out which one is the most effective, is there one more effective than another, all of those things come into it as we try to make decisions on this committee. not just we need to help you with partnerships but mechanics of what that means. the more detail the better. let me just back up to technology and aircraft because there has been a lot of debate whether it's wing or what is the most effective come the most efficient to get the best bang for the back. than other technology pieces that are actually getting you a good return. if we go back four years ago, we are spending $1 billion on a program that didn't work. what technology is working. >> i agree with everything you just said.

it's so unique from sector to sector. there could be areas where rotary aircraft isn't an effective demand that a small unmanned platform would be more effective so it really is, it's a complicated process to determine and be smart about it and use the money wisely to figure out what asset we need wear. that's part of that see gap process that i was talking about and to keep abilities initiative that we are doing and we are well underway with that and i think will be able to provide this committee with exactly that information. i can tell you, we do need additional stuff. we need additional assets, the horses, horses, the canines, et cetera. technology and infrastructure. on the bodies, it's a little tougher to say right now what we need and how much and where and we are working through that. >> traffic.

that report will be finalized when? >> i'm not sure. >> give me a gas quest a year? >> fy 17. >> okay, that helps. i also ask you to take into consideration about this is what we need. how many people does it take to maintain that long-term and be able to keep that in the ongoing conversation? i appreciate what you are doing and thanks for the extra 20 seconds mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. think both of you. earlier this month, i visited and i talked about portal a lot in this committee because we are particularly challenged in those areas, whether it's the sector or the have her sector in terms of personnel. it is absolutely critical that we have an employment plan and i want to reiterate what the senator just that. i think we can find some good folks right there. senator langford and i held a hearing where we talked about

employment regarding recruitment of millennial's and your personnel officer from the dhs team, it was a new burst of energy and so we are looking forward to hearing her report with some really creative ideas. i will enchant you want to point out the northern part. the bill that will get signed into law by the president, hopefully in the next couple weeks will put demands on you. that will inform the public and inform this committee and congress about what those threats are and what it takes in terms of personnel and equipment and technology to basically meet those threats. i just want to, once again, encourage you to not only meet the deadline but maybe bring it in a little early because as you can see, there there is a great deal of concern.

there's also a great deal of publicity about what is happening on the northern border. with that said, i want to talk about canada. we had a great conversation yesterday. i think for the record here, if you you could reiterate the kind of things that you are doing with your counterparts that can in fact expand personnel and provide more situational awareness. we have a huge advantage in the northern border that we don't have in the southern border which is a trusted long-term partner. >> there are a couple different definitions out there that we talked about yesterday with the international border patrol. it's a great initiative and part

of a task force environment. you're right. they are trusted allies. we need to continue to expand on that. when it comes to national security and intelligence information, that's probably an area we need to continue to expand on. the communication flow can be a little bit cumbersome at times and it has to go to more of a national level and it doesn't always get down to the folks on the line as quickly as it should. both sides recognize that we are working toward that. we are looking for more opportunities where we can do integrated operations, more of that, it's not just about sharing information and intelligence. it's actually taking that and analyzing that and putting that into true counter network operations. across the border and being able to do more of that. were doing some of that and i think we should and can do more of that going forward.

>> i went to reiterate what you are talking about earlier which is that there are tasks that are being performed by those wearing badges that could be done by other professionals, especially as it relates to an account unaccompanied minors. just encourage that when you're looking at this report look very closely at those tasks that the guys in green should be performing and where we can transfer out. i'm going to be really specific on this, but it does concern me. one of the biggest concerns from the border patrol agents i talk to is communication. many times, on the border, you will get bounced off a canadian tower or offer radio tower and they are out there. they are going to have to rely on the sheriff.

can you please look into communications on the northern border, especially remote locations. we owe it to those people who put on a badge and walk out the door every day, not knowing whether they're going to come back. we owe it to them. >> i want to just turn a little bit to the southern border because i've spent a fair amount of time down there. chief, you'll probably laugh at this, but can you paint your cars a different color than white? i'm serious about this. i think that obviously, not that you should be send us the clandestine but if you're a spotter on a hill in mexico in your walking drugs across the border and you see a white truck coming on the border, it's pretty easy to radio down to the guys who are carrying the contraband and say avoid this or

avoid that. i do think there is some advantage to having a vehicle that is less likely to be spotted. we know this happens. there up on the hill. they are watching you every minute, especially if they're moving product of any kind of value. your ability to move it away and respond to it and away without really just text detection is very valuable. it's just a thought and i'm passing it on from folks who look at this and say this is a problem. i want to encourage you and i'm grateful for your ongoing outreach both on the southern border and northern border. if you see something, say something. we have to keep relationships where we are all in this together. i think you were down and visited with the ranchers on the

border. good reports coming back to that so thank you. keep up the dialogue and keep up with the open communication. they know a lot. they know that land like the back of your hand. thank you for representing them and doing this work. we really appreciate it back i really have two questions. one has to do with incentives. we talked with the extradited removal from kids in central america, even those who appear, if you get in the country, you stay. i. i want to talk about other incentives as well. what about sanctuary cities? to what extent does that incentivize people to come here? they know they have jurisdiction someone for their holing up they won't be deported. do you want to speak to that?

>> i think probably from the perspective of the united states border patrol, we look at those factors, i probably don't look beyond the fact of the notice to appear. :

it can get frustrating. i can can serve as a morale challenge. and then something that was an arbitrary threshold the other challenge. what can possibly be done about that. what do we do about that. has been a tactic. the drug trafficking

organization. specifically for that reason. they are neck and received a prosecution. something that is a tactic that we pay attention to. as a common practice across the board and bring groups in. >> let's talk a little bit about some of the issues of morale. agents on the ground level live to call in the supervisor of theirs more than 20. all the ramifications. can you speak to that.

at this point i have a challenge really several of the majors nudges the impact it has on the agents but is it really captured what it should be capturing. i am taking a look at that. i've heard some of the same concerns continuous shift. we don't have that in the customs and border patrol. what is your viewpoint about how his staff in the areas of custom border patrol. right now you use overtime. an industry you don't do that. why do we do that and

government quacks. >> for the most part we use three shifts. depending upon the location and what works best they take into consideration how operations work best. no our men and women are also resource that we utilize. they work a ten hour day it helps with the coverage. they have an impact and run for that in several locations. >> do you find that that works better for you. in my conversations with agents i've seen both sides of the fence i guess. some prefer three. we look at it and aspects of what makes sense.

i will ask something will worth exploring in your joint testimony i'm concerned about this. the losses are outpacing gains. we talked a number of reasons for that something that we really want to work with you on. i don't want to just talk about that. i want to address fencing. a better wall works and also help relieve the personal issues as well. we did pass the secure fence act. i'm not suggesting 1700 miles but i'm thinking we need better fencing and more areas. i can give you a quick example

is an area along the stretch where they would have the primary fence. not only do that work but by doing so the chief told me at that point he was able to take hundred agents put them elsewhere because it didn't require that level of deployment there. the free market across on the u.s. side have all but dried up. an area where they put fencing up and the flow have all but stopped now it was a thriving shopping center. it works on multiple levels not just on the flow in our ability to do our job but also has other aspects. do we need more fencing yes, doesn't work. yes. do we need everywhere. is at the sole answer. it's part of an overall

multilayered strategy. i was tongue-in-cheek in the fence is great but if we don't had access roads to get to the fence as you move forward to identify where we do need additional fencing. we want to literally relief the staffing. i will continue. >> i want to go back to incentives. i will let you go. time is short. i've i have a couple of questions in them and ask for each of you about leadership and what led you to follow this path and how we can encourage more women to follow the path the you just set out on. yes or no question.

i think one of the questions was asked about fencing the walls. making sure that it's done properly in ways we can actually contribute. you may have mentioned san diego we were able to take a hundred and border patrol officers who would be doing that and deploy them in other ways. that would be smart. all these agents of these agents they're taking care of these kids. that ain't smart. one of the ways to reduce the way to do that actually have a future. that's part of the solution as well. i think immigration reform is part of the solution.

from time to time. i think that is part of it. they talk about that. it was an un- piloted vehicle to be able to fly appear. if you want to bring in some direct fire on this one. you can use that kind of technology or whatever. tell us what you need more of and less up. i would hope at the end of the day it would actually include the other side of the equation. most of the forks -- most of the folks came here for years. the reason for that is frankly the future now. we had been helpful to ensure that happens.

does what i said make any sense quacks everything you said make sense sir. i want to conclude if i can think you both for being here. the weight that your purchase. this is the last one where i will be the ranking member. it has been a real joy. i will be the ranking member. to support all of my colleagues in this committee. i wanted to knowledge the help of our minority staff i also want to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman i want to

remember that. i want to thank each on my staff for the weight that they work together. even as they gather here today. before we adjourn. i want to thank chris hixson and gabby, patrick bailey. i think it just a week or two ago. to contribute in this congress. and finally i want to thank laura. of all of the years that i've been here. as long as she's on our team were in good shape.

they keep everything running smoothly and efficiently. it's been a joy. i think we've done good work together. thank you senator harper. i do want to thank both of our witnesses for your many years of service it's truly appreciated. your thoughtful testimony. again, thank you that being said the record will be open for 15 days. this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> president president-elect donald trump has picked up pair of retired generals for two top security positions. james matus for defense secretary. he provided some insight into his disc fence strategy. if our intelligence community as it fit for the expanding purpose. we have less military shock exorbitant and are smaller military so less ability to take surprise in stride. accordingly we need more early morning. working with intel community is a question of funding for

the intel agencies. incorporating the broadest issues into your assessments if you consider what we must do at the national debt is assessed to the be the biggest national security threat that we face. as we noted the foundation of military strength. in a few short years however we will be paying interest on our debt and it will be a bigger bill than what we paid today. what is the impact on the national security for future generations who will inherit this irresponsible debt in the taxes to service at. no nation in history has maintained its military power if it failed to keep the fiscal house in order. how do you urgently hold the damage caused by that.

no foe in the field can wreck such havoc on the security it would force rice choices. we have the sound thinking and government. this committee must lead the effort. is costing military readiness and long-term capability while sapping the morale. without predictability no strategy can be implemented by your military leaders. in our approach to the world that we must be willing to ask strategic questions. in the middle east where influence is at our lowest point . we need that. one that permits us to take our own side in this fight.

crafting such a policy within a fundamental question in the one question. the fundamental question i believe his political islam in our best interest. what is our policy to support the forces. they cannot be permitted to take refuge behind false religious garb. we have many potential allies around the world and in the middle east who are rallied to us but we have not been clear about where we stand about the terrorist threat. >> he said he will announce his nomination for defense secretary on monday. for him to be confirmed. he would have to approve legislation by passing a law that bars retired military

officers from becoming defense secretary with the seven years of leaving active duty. about politics and security in the middle east. that world argument from a supreme court case and whether immigrants facing deportation can be detained for longer than six months without a bail hearing. the case is a jennings versus rodriguez. the arguments tonight at eight eastern. it brings you 48 hours of non- on saturday night at 845 eastern mit professor author of open to debate they put liberal america on the firing line.

they used the television program to open arguments outside of his conservative circles. which made him an early pundit. as our level deteriorated. it seem like important time to be talking about a share that really valued debate between people that disagree with each other. the 75th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor is the focus of a discussion featuring several authors and will we will be taking your phone calls life from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern. the former senator george mitchell from (200)090-2011 looks at the israeli palestinian conflict in his book a path to peace. and a way forward in the middle east.

they have long since renounced violence. they have opted for peaceful negotiation to achieve in the state. go to book tv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> i'm next on c-span to a discussion about the future of nato and other u.s. alliances. civilian defense department officials. from the center for strategic and international studies in washington dc this is an hour and a half. good afternoon. i hope everyone have a good thanksgiving break and

appreciate you getting back to work with ernest. i am mike green. is a real delight today to hold this rollout for a new project being led by andrew bashir. and the national security advisor. with a long record of distinguished service in the government. and andrew joined us here in together conceived of and designed at this project which is to look at american leadership and alliances in the two to of course go together. and are at a point of some transition turbulence given events around the world and

given the pressures of globalization and other things on a domestic supporter of alliances. the presidential transition. and it seems a good time to get back to some of the fundamentals while he bit the system and a what what sustains it. what's in it for us. what are the things that we have to do to make it more effective. and they're going to do this and i will introduce him now. the strategy. beginning with this event today. i'm gonna turn it over now to the director to this project and let andrew tell us about the rest of today. thank you mike and thank you everyone. for coming. in particular i would like to thank you for your support for this project which i think is

important. after that likely say. the support for the project of the president of the sea sis. the excellent advisory board we had been able to pull together to support this project. and my colleagues who are helping me out on the project team. following the catastrophe of the second world war. they worked with their counterparts around the world to build and maintain a global network of regional and bilateral alliances. unsurpassed in human history. starting with nato in europe winning the western pacific.

instability and prosperity. the united states and the treaty alliance has the security partnerships. none of this however was preordained. isolationism and the urge to withdraw from conflict have been austrian in american politics since the earliest days of the republic. coming into the to the surface in the 1930s in the mid- 1970s after the war in vietnam. and of course a different times over the same time it was domestic policies rather than america that royal alliances across europe asia and the middle east.

despite these times of contention and the significant cost alliance we have enjoyed bipartisan political support. notwithstanding president-elect trump openly question the value of nato and the united states and its most important alliances in asia and city president barack obama criticized some allies. by the chicago council on global affairs shows that the american public overwhelmingly supported alliances and american leadership in the world. 90% of americans including many trumpet supporters consider maintaining existing alliances and effective ways of achieving the foreign policy goals.

and nearly as many support building new alliances with other countries. nurturing and renewing the support is vital because the date the united states and its allies face an unprecedented range of threats. these include russian aggression. and adventurism and the middle east. north korea's rapidly developed nuclear and ballistic cell programs. iran's missile development continuing support for terrorism and spreading influence and the threat posted by other islamic terrorism groups around the world. the military is not prepared for these threats. there is an element of complacency about the threats we face in the loss of

perspective about the real underpinnings of our freedom of choice in our prosperity. they require sustained. today however it is not keeping pace. in the popular forces in asia the u.s. alliance and the implication of that in south korea is unclear it was also

unclear. they are alienated by the nuclear deal with iran. america's credibility is the security guarantor has been damaged by the failure to enforce the red light and by president-elect trump and his threat. unless they pay more for their defense. everywhere there is a sense that the west is in retreat and that the order is framed. this is the projects jumping off point. and the role and relevance that date back to the earliest days of the cold war.

they offset the benefits today and how they can adapt to make a very different challenge that we face. the key to alliances is that the sum is more than the parts. the enhanced security by combining the military power i also play an important role in supporting the order relationship that works in both directions the relationships and mutual trust over time that ad hoc coalitions simply can't wreck the fight. with the policy direction a work in progress. the allies should welcome some of the early signs they had spoken with many allied leaders. to this restore spending and build a larger navy and modernize the u.s. nuclear arsenals. all important steps that will increase and should reassure

america's allies. for the first time in decades the american alliance commitment are at issue. for decades the united states was so dominant globally that allies and even american policymakers often tended to see the alliance system is some sort of free international public good. and particularly for allies it was. things are very different. the rivals such as china are closing the economic gap imposed profound challenges. in the site are meant they will be instinctively tempted deals of convenience. and perhaps the more transactional approach. but for the costs and challenges posed by alliances and managing allies america

needs to think hard today about how attractive a world without allies would really be. there's nothing that they would like more to see the dismantling of america. that reality alone should give serious cause for thought. and along with the treaty. they observed that it's difficult and at times exceedingly so to understand precisely what the thinking is. i have no doubt that many diplomatic things. they will agree that it's certainly one of those times. the first thing is alliances

addition. and if so what part do they pay and upholding it. how do alliances advance u.s. national interest today. did the institutions need to be overhauled how could they contribute. what is the role of u.s. leadership. the day-to-day management of alliances. which allies are pulling their weight and in which areas do they need to lift their game. how can they build military form and address those gaps. in a world where nuclear records are making an unfortunate comeback.

what approaches should they take to combat coercion harbor threats and cyber attacks into exchanging intelligence. what major alliance management challenges are we likely to confront and how can we overcome them. the third and in some ways the most important research theme is about understanding and engaging public opinion. notwithstanding the positive pulling i cited earlier. we can take continuing support in the united states or in allied countries. in a recent interview he pointed to a gap in foreign policy perception between the american public and in the number of countries including my own country australia suggested a great anxiety about the future.

we have to do a better job of understanding public opinion and of making the case for alliances and not just here in washington dc. in short it's time we rediscovered what former secretary of state used to call our duty to explain. which of course brings us full circle. back to the crucial importance of leadership. today's event is the first of a program of public events policy roundtables and where we will examine those questions. bold and to guide american policymakers. to navigate that challenging environment that confronts it. we hope you will stay involved in this project and in particular the input and engagement will be essential. ladies and gentlemen is now my pleasure and honor to introduce our guest speaker today he is the robert and

marian distinguish robert and marian distinguish and one of the united states must distinguish senior officers. he is the recipient of numerous u.s. and foreign awards. the 28th -- 29th chief of operations. and introduced numerous technological aspirations. most relevant today. he held six commands and operated closely with american allies in the pacific is one of the only two officers in the nation's history to command both the atlantic and pacific fleets. the role of alliances in the global military strategy. after his remarks we will briefly reconfigure the podium and a panel of experts is going to drill down into alliance in more detail.

now we will invite him to speak. see mac thank you andrew and thank you to cs you can watch the rest of this event at c-span.org. coming up at 630 eastern time today we will take you to the brookings institution for the discussion on u.s. policy in the middle east we will hear from the israeli defense minister speaking there as part of the annual form. now on c-span to it as a senate subcommittee hearing examining the management of the renewable fuel standard program it will can attain a minimal volume. introduce the nation's reliance on imported oil. representatives from the representatives from the epa and the government accountability office he chairs the subcommittee.

good afternoon everyone. i want to welcome you to the sub committee hearing. thank you for being here. today this is a second hearing. in my fourth hearing total on this topic. committed to finding the solution for what has become a deeply flawed program. they establish the rs after. and lowering greenhouse gas admission by mandating that they be blended with domestic transportation fuel after that time the bimetal protection agency well had wide latitude. they must be blended into the gasoline supply. however situation has changed pretty dramatically. demand for oil in the transportation sector is lower

than originally predicted. due to heightened fuel economy standards. in 2005 and 2007 we were importing 60% of our oil now is 27 percent. through a series of hearings i had work to determine the structure to achieve its goals. specifically i've tried to understand that. and appreciate how difficult it is for the agency to administer the program. congress created the unworkable rf formula. they have required to release the final volumes by november the 30th to allow industry precipitate ends. they failed to meet this november 30 deadline and only

finally released it for 2014 through 2016 on november the 30. one you're late for the 2015 volumes in two years late for the 2014 final volumes. i would like to recognize the epa. you're making up ground. they face with the rf. in determining whether that program will be able to meet its goals in the future. it's taken them 19 months to conduct a thorough and independent analysis and finalize its conclusions. in order to reach the conclusions and according the convergent group of stakeholders and the nonprofit sector to produce two reports. which were released monday november the 28th.

the first report said that advance production is unlikely to have that increasing production target. they are still too expensive for stakeholders to produce and necessary levels to meet the targets even with government funded rnd and mandated subsidies. despite the government spending with the $1.1 billion for advanced biofuel research and develop it. the targets are uncontainable. the second report they concluded that it is unlikely to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. they should reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will remain to a limited. for example, in 2015 it was produced and a meager 142 million gallons. less than 5% of the target of

3 billion gallons. they comment on the findings. we have an independent government auditor finding that confirmed it. it is not sustainable and well not meet the intended goals. it's time for congress and the next administration and the american public to do away with the rs after. here is my comparison. last year they looked again at education. in a very eager effort to do what's best in the future.

those mandates were the wrong way to go. we came back. it's time that we do away with these mandates. it's not like we don't like education we do. it's not that any of us are opposed to ethanol. it's in the fuel supply right now. it's a series of mandates. the are not sustainable. delighted to have them here. to engage in the conversation. with our witnesses today. we will recognize the ranking member for our opening statement when she arrives. she's she is running a little bit behind. we always say the lady is never late.

i will allow her to do her opening statement. with that let me swear in our witnesses. if you would please stand. will it be the truth the whole truth so help you god let me do a quick introduction for both of you. and then when they arrive. i will have her do an opening statement as well. leaving work on a broad energy issues. from the university of washington in seattle. the acting assistant administrator. of air and radiation having previously served in the principal deputy to the assistant administrator. she was also incorporated.

held leadership positions in the indiana department of air quality. and graduated from harvard college. thank you for being here. i would recognize the ranking member. my great apologies for being a little late. first off i want to thank both of our witnesses for attending at this hearing it follows on the issues that we saw. i just last week in calendar year 2017. they even increased in advance

biofuel. we were grateful. wish he would've you would've come a little earlier. they didn't need that. for some advanced biofuels. because of lack of production. and we want to hear more about that and that really is what generated the discussion today. that such delays with setting the volume did lead to solid investment in advanced biofuels. have we have more certainty in the marketplace we could've seen the kind of investment that would've taken to get that product into the market. the reports that were reading today don't necessarily come as a surprise they found that we won't meet some of the targets for advanced biofuels or greenhouse gas reductions to measures that they do go

hand-in-hand. again this is a surprise as we acknowledge that last year's hearing it was part of the disruption that we saw in the marketplace as a result of uncertainty from earlier decisions. they made contingency plans they found that it was not ready to meet these targets to reduce those annual applications. obligations. this is why having annual roles is helpful though it also brings a level of uncertainty. we can just when it's absolutely necessary. they put in place authorities for them to re- write the levels and i look for to discussing the here today. with both of our witnesses. i look for to hearing from the witnesses and discussing how we can work together with the industry and the administration. and certainly note that president-elect trump supports

our sf. we all know how important it is to markets. into certainty for our farmers. we are grateful that you're both here. as will be an ongoing and continuing subject of discussion but if you are going to be for all of the above this is a key component that helps us diversify. congress was wise when they first and active it. we want to see that these work. thank you mr. mckay. we look forward to your testimony. you are recognized for your opening statement. >> chairman lincoln. i am pleased to be here today to discuss the reports. in response to a request we understood this to studies.

one study reported on federal efforts as well as prospects for meeting that statutory targets. the second study reported on the administration. and how that administration could be improved as well as the prospect for meeting the goals for reducing greenhouse gas admission. to do these studies we entered into a con tact. to identify who could assist us in answering the questions. last spring we held a group meeting at the academy with 20 of these we also met individually to evaluate the administration of the program. we spoke with officials from doe epa and the department of

defense. we also visited research laboratories. interviewed representatives of 11 producers in the wide variety of feedstocks. finally we reviewed numerous studies and reports pertinent to our questions. the most salient finding is that it is unlikely that they can meet statutory targets in and near to midterm. they felt below the targets by well over a billion gallons in 2014 and is expected to be almost $5 billion a gallon. there is some room for growth. particularly for the fuels that have already been commercialized we found a broad expert consensus that this growth potential the

second major finding is that changes to law or epa administration could improve the program into the investment climate for advanced biofuels. experts said that changing obligated parties would improve the functioning of the rental market. and eliminate a burden on small independent refineries. in addition providing federal tax credits would reduce uncertainty. however there remain significant barriers to adding more biofuels these include the need. to educate consumers about how to value different blends. in addressing the risk that increases it. they will lead to higher prices. they will constrain growth. .. greenhouse gases.

with regard to important fuels the united states has made great progress with imports of petroleum in large part because domestic oil production has increased, net imported biofuels have helped to a smaller degree and progress would require cost competitive advantage. lastly, experts generally agree this could be done more

efficiently using other policies. in particular low carbon fuel standard would incentivize greenhouse gas reductions and do so at lower cost. gao make the recommendations to these reports, but there is no consensus among experts how to proceed with policy in general. my prepared statement, i will answer any questions. >> thank you, members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity on the fuel standard program and the final for the standards and biomass requirements in 2018. and the energy policy act for the energy independence attorney act of 2007. that law's goal is moving the

united states to greater energy independence increasing production of clean renewable fuels and establish new annual program targets for decreasing every year to reach a total of 36 billion gallons by 2022. congress include tools like waiver positions to adjust statutory targets and circumstances including where the statutorily prescribed volume did not hit. the clean air act required epa to issue annual standards from four categories of renewable fuels, total advanced biomass standards designate the percentage of each biofuel category the gasoline and diesel must blend into transportation fuel by november 30th of each year, the following year. epa is committed to successful

implementation and fast here is active and productive one. one of our chief priorities has been timely issuance of the annual volume and we stay on schedule for the 2017 rule as the chairman acknowledged, finalize that last week. the final incorporates the most up-to-date data available to us and informed by stakeholder comments provided during a public hearing held in kansas city and consultation with the department of energy and agriculture. the 2017 volume final established requirements for advanced and total renewable fuel for 2017 and includes biomass-based diesel volume requirement for 2018. 2017 final rule once again establishes ambitious but achievable targets for the program and becomes part of what is now a multi-year track record. total renewable fuel volumes

would grow by one.2 billion gallons from 2015 to 2017. advanced renewable fuel requires 50% weight cycle greenhouse gas emissions reduction, would grow by 700 million gallons by 2016-17. congress did not establish goals for non-advanced or conventional biofuels, the established market for total advanced fuel means conventional biofuels reached 15 million gallons was 2017 final will achieve that level. biomass-based diesel which must achieve 50% lifecycle will grow by 100 million gallons from 2017-2018 and the final 2018 standard is more than double congressionally mandated minimum level of 1 billion gallons. finally, cellulose biofuels which require 60% lifecycle carbon emission reductions grow by 81 million gallons or 35%

from 2016 to 2017. the agency is active in other areas of the program and i would like to mention two. on november 16th we published the renewable enhancement and growth support proposed rules, a collection of proposed revisions fuel regulations that support market growth of advanced and other biofuels in the us. that proposal among other things establish updated regulatory structure that will allow biofuel to process renewable feedstocks at one facility and process them into renewable fuel at another facility under existing tasks was this would improve the economic and efficiencies for production of biofuels particularly advanced and cellulosic fuels as the proposal reflects many stakeholders looking forward to people's comments in january. the second thing to mention is over the past year epa received several positions from stakeholders asking us to change the deck of obligation on the

program that has been mentioned which currently refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel other related parties and certain stakeholders have asked us to initiate a rulemaking to change the deck of regulation to appoint further downstream since there has been a huge input from a wide range of stakeholders with widely divergent views and on november 10th this year we should proposed denial of these petitions that examined the issue in depth and importantly provides an opportunity for the public to provide comments for the agency which was a strong request as well so we are looking forward to input on that. recently gao issued these two reports, provided responses and appreciate the opportunity and those comments are included as part of the final report. broadly speaking the reports examine the same challenges we recognized and talked about before associated with greater levels of advanced biofuel

production especially cellulosic fuel and we welcome the discussion in the reports and today. we recognize opportunities and challenges ahead. we are committed to implementing congress have statute the best we can to achieve congress's goal and look forward to the conversation today and appreciate the opportunity to be here. >> thank you. we recognize senator ernst. >> thank you, mister chair and both of you for appearing today. this is an interesting topic for a number of us and especially for me coming from the midwest where this is a great part of our economy. i always appreciate the opportunity and it has spurred domestic energy production, throughout the midwest

especially in rural areas and brought a lot of competition, needed competition to the gas pump and saved american consumer money and reduce reliance on foreign oil. some of the aggressive production targets for advanced biofuels originally envisioned by congress haven't been achieved, and i will recognize that. it is not time to hit the panic button and pull the rug out from under this burgeoning industry. we are just getting started is how i feel about this. one of the reports that gao had states cellulosic technology at existing plants is the most cost-effective means for generating advanced biofuels. i did this at one of those facilities in iowa earlier this

year. they are using corn fiber which is a byproduct of the ethanol process to create cellulosic ethanol and this is a great example of what this was originally intended to do, to support the expansion of conventional biofuels for those advanced biofuels and if we create further uncertainty about the future of the rss in our commitment to biofuel, it will only serve to slow our research and investment down towards attaining these goals originally set by congress. my question to you would be what are the most effective things that we can do as a federal government to provide certainty so that these companies want to invest in the advanced biofuel production process. what can we do to provide

certainty? >> we did hear from a number of people, certainty and a lot of producers, they relied on federal funding for r&d because there isn't available funding from the private sector to do a lot of research they need. also heard that even with those changes, they are many years away from bringing even the technology they understand about ethanol for which there are currently a couple commercial plants that are many years from bringing costs to where they

would be competitive in a market in a market sense. >> thank you. miss mckay, i want to -- just as the vice chair did, the epa getting our ff back on track, we appreciate that and the issuance of the final 2017 reos. can you highlight factors that led to the agency increasing the blending targets from proposed levels to the final? >> yes. the major factor we look at when we updated throughout the year is expected gasoline usage, we rely on eia for their estimates. additional gasoline usage in 2017 which allowed us to grow those volumes and we continually update expectations about the ability of the industry to

produce volumes. when we put that together, that is the numbers fell out that we were able to decrease volume. >> i appreciate that very much. we do have some challenges, but providing certainty, an important part of ensuring, and we have seen other concessions made in the federal government, tax credits, we see it with fracking, i don't see why we shouldn't continue with research and development in this area, when it has done a great deal to support the economy especially when we have a downturn in the

agricultural economy. i encourage you to continue supporting the rfs, further research and development in this industry, it is a valuable part of our american economy. thank you for being here today and answering questions. >> before i begin my question, i want to ask the letter i'm going to hand to you is introduced into the record. a group that frequently don't find their names on the same letter. they are suggesting and expressing a unified position in opposition of efforts by petitioners for the point of obligation and compliance with you get api in and rsa on the same letter, pretty remarkable. that might speak volumes in terms of answering the petition and we hope you get full

consideration but these interest groups have been long involved in this and for them to share a common opinion might put weight on what they are doing or suggesting. we are trying to get a handle on how we don't have this happen again, where the market is unresponsive or in a position of uncertainty given lack of certainty on where we are headed the in terms of numbers. to prevent that from happening again, we have to better understand why the market doesn't respond and come to numbers that are adequate to meet the level. my first question would be for you, mister gary roughead, what was the most significant contributor to the delay in

advanced biofuels production? delays in setting up the rfs program initially, uncertainty related to the rbl's uncertainty from the litigation and what i believe was flawed reading of statutory waivers or was it more about tax uncertainty or was it something altogether? in your opinion, the work you did, had we had maintained a level of statutory certainty or statutory requirements we would have seen the level of investment to meet the standard. >> i think it is clear from most of the people we spoke with including producers, prospective researchers, the price of oil, the price of oil is very high,

more investment in alternatives, and the price was high, even oil companies trying to diversify in biofuel technology, when the bottom fell out of the market, and reductions and slower growth, investors look at biofuels as not viable investment as other things. in the margin, regulatory uncertainty about tax credits do play a role, but what we found is for example, the most likely advanced biofuel to be technologically or commercially

ready. it would require multiple generations of plants, might bring it down to where it is commercially viable. it depends on the underlying price of biofuels. >> i understand what you are saying, lower-priced competitor can drive investments someplace else and cause people a lot of concern but bring regulatory uncertainty. when we look at advanced, not to put a fine point on it. as you look at potential available advanced manufacturing, egg products, and the pushback i got is, the

plants that can be developed, provide the building block for other opportunity for styrofoam, all of it begins at this level of innovation, beyond all of the above energy policy that works for the united states and gives this diversity in our fuel choices, we have to realize this is also technology, and it is critical, and the natural resource, and stuff we grow in our country. we are hopeful we will have

consistency going forward, and the reset authority. and when we had this discussion around reports and advanced fuel, my mandate just because for a variety of reasons we don't meet the targets doesn't mean the law is a failure. we have a process in place, to correct if necessary, 2007 law congress passed included the reset provision to allow eps to adjust the mandate after 2016. the volume totaled in the table had gone below the law by 20%, or by 50% in one year. has this authority been

triggered for any tables in the law today and since the authority i would like to explain where you see the reset authority today and likelihood of research and if what role this disruption played in getting to the reset authority. to explain what congress laid out, got it exactly right, 20% in one year, so as far as those levels that have been triggered for cellulosic and advanced but not total, so the agency, finishing 2016, the agency has not embarked on a reset. we are paying close attention. a couple things are going on the cause us to think hard about how to deal with that. one is the idea of moving forward with one or two but not

all the volume standards, could be very disruptive to the market because of the careful balance that congress established, the relationship of those nested standards and still have some ongoing uncertainty because ending litigation of our authority with respect to waiver in particular as well. we have not hit even the first year trigger for a total, it would be two more years before that would be triggered and that is where we are with the reset. >> we don't want a self-fulfilling prophecy which the reset happens because we reset. mister roscoe, with this reset to testify panelists, was a reset not making a report, not

meeting increasing targets. >> it did come up. and to be available in terms of how much volume is available, whether or not the industry -- >> we keep talking in circles, the problem we have is what is available depends on regulatory certainty and i recognize the marketplace and we are a big producer of oil so we understand what is happening with oil but the frustration for me, what is available what is available what is available, depends on what capital investment, and innovation is going to depend on regulatory certainty so we are in this spiral that deeply concerns me and when you discuss the reset, what if we hadn't had

regulatory uncertainty, what if these targets remained available? we would have the ability to amp up and meet the requirements under the law or targets under the law. >> i don't think we heard a lot of people say if epa had maintained statutory target that they would have been met. what they did say is going forward, reducing regulatory uncertainty improves marginally the investment, and they did not say that and there would be adequate investment. >> they would have been likely to say $100 a barrel would fit the investment, $40 plus a $50 a barrel with regulatory

uncertainty was not causation for the problem. >> in the reports, we talk about r&d and the state of science, well up the curve on commercialization far above the market, the market rate. many years from that, the most optimistic scenarios. even -- a lot of money at it which now there is at this. generations of plants for the commercial scale operation, many generations, achieving efficiencies, and the current cost they can produce is so high that you would need many generations to bring those costs down if at all. >> it went to technological

impossibility at this point in time. >> the state of technology, very much higher than market competitive price of motor fuels. >> we are going to have an ongoing discussion when we reach the day trigger on the reset and the chairman has been discussing this quite a bit and we need to live in reality, we need to understand this was designed to create an environment, regulatory environment and regulatory certainty that would grow investment and grow technology and we missed a couple because of the uncertainty in the market. i will yield to the chairman. >> i would like to open this up.

the statute itself, the way it was designed in 2007 had a high volume of corn based ethanol and decreasing amounts if i remember correctly, 44% by the time we get to the end of the window. that is the other part of the statute because while you are trying to follow a statute written in an unworkable way, in an untenable situation in waiver land, to constantly work with every side of the argument, to match this one, the statute itself doesn't work with the requirements the we were using. you are having to work through this process, how are you balancing this issue, statute requires using much less corn ethanol in advance where technology doesn't exist yet for large-scale production of the advanced -- for you to keep a

total amount and not do a reset of total amount you have to violate a different part of the statute which requires less of this. how does that conversation go? >> that is the deck i made about moving forward with reset on two categories and not because of the balance. the goals of the statues as i understand it are to focus in the long-term on advanced biofuels, divide the most opportunity with greenhouse gas reductions and has been discussed already here, that is an industry that is just starting has compared to industry or ethanol industry and those technologies have been around for a long time. it was a tall order, aspirational legislation to move

in a certain direction, aspirational in the sense we are not supposed to do it. it was a vision and ambitious one. our focus, the administrator's focus has been we need to be providing as much encouragement as possible to advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels, because we are just at the point with this rule where we have gotten to the maximum conventional amount we now move in to the area where hopefully those volumes continue to grow and move towards the ultimate proportion that you mentioned. >> some of this has been a redefinition of what is included in advanced. give me a percentage, what was

defined, or or five years ago, for other types of fuel? >> it is not a redefinition because the statute says in order to be cellulosic, advanced 50% reduction, there are processes in the will we are implementing as expeditiously as we can, people come to us with pathways, for each one of those we look at what the applicant comes to us with, what does this mean in terms of reduction and does it qualify? so things that have been approved recently, one of the most promising is biomass which qualifies as cellulosic fuel, allowed to increase volumes of cellulosic quite significantly.

and continued to look at those technologies as they fit into different categories, i will put them in the right categories. >> in that area, promising the biogas to see that, the feed stock for that and the ability, the challenge that is very productive, exceeded its targets but the amount we produce of feedstock is the problem. you have to kill more hog than find more increase to go after that to get more of it. the same issue with biomass as well. is there a in the amount of feedstock out there? >> i don't know the answer to that. with many of these feedstocks, that is part of the analysis, how much is available, and is efficient and cost efficient to encourage. the market comes into play in a