are not going to get away with that. [applause] with that, thank you very much. thank you all. [applause] >> tonight on c-span two, homeland security secretary john kelly on his department annual budget. then a discussion about new healthcare technologies. the heads of the naval sea systems command on maintaining the navy's ships and weapons systems. homeland security secretary john kelly testifies today at a capitol hill hearing on his department 2018 budget. the white house has asked for $44 billion to go to the department of homeland security including increased funding for border security and immigration enforcement. secretary kelly answered questions about terrorism and the president proposed travel ban from six majority muslim

countries. this hearing is two hours.

>> good morning, will go to corning. my written opening say that the in the record without objection. i want to welcome secretary kelly. this is a hearing on the department of homeland security's fiscal year 2018 budget. this is a third time that the secretary kelly who has appeared before this committee as secretary of the department and again, we welcome you and appreciate your service to this country. in lieu of my written opening statement i want to make a couple comments.

by vocation, i'm an accountant so i've gone through budget meetings many, many times. first i want to talk about the history of the budget of the department of homeland security. were not quite ready for the church. when you take a look at total budget authority, when the department was first it up the first fiscal year was 2004 and the department budget was a total budgetary authority, mandatory industry was $36.5 billion. now, had that magic grown by inflation today's request would be little under $50 billion. forty-eight and 25. instead, total budget authority is $70.6 billion about a 93% increase. from my standpoint, that represents on a bipartisan fashion president bush, president obama and now president trump realized that

the threat environments that america faces has become more severe. it's growing, it's evolving and metastasizing and the department needs more resources to keep this home and safe. so, as much as i'm concerned about the long-term budget situation of this country, the $20 trillion were already in that, we cannot be penalized and foolish. i don't think i seen an accurate assessment of how much economic loss we suffered because of 911. we have to do everything we possibly can -- let's faces, the fence of our nation and homeland is the top priority of government. i want to be completely supportive of the secretaries across, tough budget times but we need to allocate the resources to keep this nation and our homeland safe. next point i want to make is the dramatic change we've had in total apprehension. we have a chart here. what i've done because we only

have three months worth of history under the new administration and i've just gone back and had my staff prepare a three month moving average of apprehensions long the southwest border. it's incredibly revealing, prior to the last three months, on average, we were apprehending little more than 122,000 individuals coming into this country illegally. the last three months total it was just under 56000. in other words, were 45, 46% of the previous four or five years average. that's pretty remarkable result. since taking over the chairmanship, i've been on this committee looking at the problem of illegal entry into our southwest border and i've been saying repeatedly that the first thing we need to do is be committed to securing our border and then eliminating the incentives for illegal immigration. i was a lack of enforcement of

our immigration laws has been a huge incentive for people coming to this country. under the new admissions, under new secretary, we've committed to securing our border and i was a little concerned when people were taking credit for this reduction -- will see what happens after four months but just that signal alone that we are committed to securing this quarter and we will enforce our laws has had a powerful effect and were seen the results of it right now. again, i commend the secretary for standing strong against severe criticism and actually enforcing laws. with that i'll turn it over to our ranking member, senator mccaskill smacked thank you, senator and thank you secretary kelly for being here for you have appeared this committee a couple months ago for the first time after being confirmed. just look at the development that has occurred in the few months since then where you have had to be all hands on deck for

issues in the national homeland security. may 11th we met with the airline industry about your concern about large electronic bands in terms of international travel. may 12th we had a ransom where cyber attack that struck more than 200,000 computers and a hundred 50 countries shutting down auto production in france, police department in india and closing doctor's office in britain. then, of course, tragically on may 202nd a terror suicide bomber killed 22 injure innocent children and adults in manchester, england. then this past weekend terrorist killed seven in london. these are just a few of examples of why we are counting on you and why we respect the job that you have to do every day and how difficult it truly is. the importance of your work also speaks to the critical responsibility this committee has in providing oversight. i've never, ever, ever known of a government agency that works better with less oversight. asking hard questions is, of course, the way you do aggressive oversight.

i'm really particular piece that you are not afraid to answer tough questions. it's kind of who you are. you been that way. throughout your career, in fact, i noticed speech you gave to the coast guard cadet and i'll put here, tell the truth to your seniors even though it's uncomfortable, even though they may not want to hear it. they deserve that. tell the truth. i know that you will continue to speak truth to power and i look forward to your honest assessment of what we can do to help you in that regard. while none of its three teresita the attack over the past weekend would have been impacted by the president's proposed travel ban a lot of the discussion in the united kingdom is now about the government conservative parties cuts to police resources over the last decade. and how many fewer resources there were actually on the ground to prevent those terrorist attacks. i'm concerned that the president's budget plans to cut critical tsa programs at a time

when we cannot afford to let up on the security measures. a large portion of this cut is taken from the micro team, the visible intermodal prevention response team which are deployed all over the country to provide critical assistance with securing ports, subways and terminals. some of the most attractive soft targets for terrorists in our country. the president's budget aims to cut the fiber teams from 31 to 18. to cover the entire country. the urban area security initiative which been a lifeline for major is that have a soft targets because of the large population those also have been cut. additionally, the police president's budget will eliminate the law enforcement officer reimbursement program which provides assistance to local law enforcement agencies to help secure our airports. hundreds of airports across the country take part in this program and particularly for smaller airports, this assistance is critically important. the president's budget will al

also/dhs programs that provide critical security toward our transportation systems. the transportation grant program will be cut in half, the port security grant program will be cut in half, the president is calling for complete elimination of the complex coordinated terrorist attack grant program. i'm concerned that these priorities are not getting the attention they deserve. especially, in light of what's going on around the world. i think we may be focused on the shiny objects which has come to be known as the travel ban when instead we need to focus on how many people we have in your terminology, general boots on the ground in terms of being able to identify, track and prevent terrorist attacks. with the additional borland agents and air and marine officers but there is no provision in the budget for additional cdt officers and the difference in terminology is very important because as you know, senator kelly, the majority of drugs and other

contraband come to our country through the port of entry and the cpd officers are the ones responsible for finding them and stopping them. we cannot neglect our port of entry as we try to increase resources in terms of border patrol. i'm glad you're here today, secondary kelly, there's a lot of important issues before us. i have a lot of questions, i know the rest of the committee does too. i can't tell you how much it means to all of us that you're willing to come here. both democrat and rebellions and answer our questions. i hope the rest of the ministration follows your example because i think you're setting a good one. >> it is the attrition of this committee to swear in our witnesses. so if you will rise and raise your right hand. >> to sarah's where the test leave give before this committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god. >> secretary kelly is the fifth

secretary of homeland security. trying to joining dhs general kelly served as commander of the us southern command where you worked closely with us law enforcement and dhs personnel in a coordinated effort to combat the flow of drugs, people and other threats against the homeland in the united states from across the southern border. victory kelly's career included extensive marine corps where he commanded marine forces reserves and marine forces north and served as senior military assistance to sector of the fence. less than a year after his retirement from service secretary kelly returned to serve the american people as secretary of homeland security. general kelly is a retired four-star general, goldstar parents, america cannot be more appreciative and more fortunate to have you serving in this capacity. we thank you for your service and look forward to your testimony. >> ranking member mccaskill and distinct members of the committee. every day the men and women of the department of homeland

security protects americans from the threat we face. so, it is a great pleasure to appear before you today to talk about the tremendous many women and the critical missions they carry out in service of our america every day and night, 247, 365. i believe as anyone who fully understand the fundamental role of our government also believes, the federal government's responsibility every day begins and ends with flexion of the homeland and the security of our people. no other mission is as important, no other consideration more pressing a button on. the president's fiscal year 2018 budget request for the department will make it possible for us to continue and expand in many ways and our ability to protect our nation and its people. the world is a different place today and we can no longer think in terms of defense over there but must think of terms of the security over all of the homeland, across the numerous domains of what potential attacks and defense. the department of homeland security is making a difference while the department of defense fights the away game.

together and with because of the interagency cooperation with the dia, cia, fbi, nsa, atf and over a million state and local and tribal enforcement professionals america today is safe. , secure and prepared in a way that most did not envision the day before 911. the plot to attack the nation on numerous appropriate traders are relentless. we need a fully funny budget that matches our mission, no more continuing resolutions and i think this budget does that. the budget requests 44.1 billion in net discretionary funding for the department of homeland security and it also requested 7.4 billion to finance the cost of emergencies and major disasters relief fund.

when you're talking about numbers like these is easy to lose sight of what's behind each dollar. when you get down to it, behind each and every dollar are hard-working men and women who dedicated their careers in many ways risk their lives to protect the american people. every dollar invested in the men and women are dhs and every dollar invested in the tools, infrastructure, equipment and training they need to get the job done it's a investment in prosperity, freedom and the rule of law. above all is the investment in the security of the american people. as far as i am concerned, recent events show you cannot invest too much insecurity. terrorist attacks and in simply civilians and kabul, cairo, south asia, manchester and london are horrific reminders of the dangers we face globally. it also illustrates the need to have we can to keep our people safe. that means getting better about verifying identity, making sure that people who are they say they are, and working with our international partners to raise their awareness and raise their

defenses, and force them to do what needs be to operate at the levels we work at. domestically one of the most important enhancements to this effort is the real id initiative that passed into law 12 years ago by the united states congress. one, which one of our states has taken just like many others are working hard at the plants. in those 12 years someone elected or appointed state and federal positions who have the fundamental and sacred responsibility to safeguard the nation have chosen to drag their feet or even ignore the law passed by congress. i will not. real id will make america safer and it already is. real id will soon be enforced at our airports, ports of entry in all federal facilities and it's a critically important 911 commission recommendation that others have been willing to ignore.

i which will ensure that it implement it on schedule with no extension for states that are not taking the efforts seriously. for the states and territories that cannot or will not make the january 2018 deadline they should be encouraging other citizens to have other forms of id with the real id law. passports, available from the state department. we need to prevent bad actors regardless of religion, race or national alley for entering our country. in recent years we have roots in an unprecedented spike in terraced travel. there are more terrorists hotspots and puts folders now than in any other time in modern history. in syria and rack, for instance we have thousands of jihadists that have converged from more than 120 countries. our super military machine acting in coalition with an leading other lightman partners as they succeed on the battlefield and the caliphate, interact and. these jihadist fighters return home to europe, south asia, southeast asia, australia and even the western hemisphere. who knows what they're up to? but we can guess.

they are heading to what they think are safe havens to continue their plotting and otherwise there advance their toxic ideology of hate, death and intolerance. content wherever they are allowed to hide. we expect that some will look to travel to the united states to carry out attacks. this context in mind the president has issued clear direction in the form of an executive order to the entire executive branch to prevent the entry of aliens who seek to do us harm. the current code injunction prevents us from taking steps right now to prove the security of the homeland until we see how that court action plays out. while some discuss, debate and argue the name title and label that they ascribe to the presently professional men and women like me are actually in the business of implementing the president's intent to secure the nation and we are doing that. we'll let the chattering class and self-appointed critics talk about the name and i just hope

the congress is the wisdom and what the president is trying to do, to protect america and its people and at that the congress are willing to work with those of us in the business of securing the nation and it's been my experience in less than four months on the job that the congress is, in fact, committed to that. the congress district court induction has prevented us from from aliens from six countries with state the civil war or state-sponsored terrorism and are basically failed states. they have the same countries identified by the congress in previous administrations, in 2013 as nations of great concern. at the time, the expectation was that those in the business of securing the nation lawfully with focus additional attention on these nations and others of similar circumstances for supplementary inaccurate betting. this is nothing to do with religion, skin color or the way they live their lives but all about security for the united states and nothing else. these are countries that are unable or unwilling to help us

validate the backgrounds of persons within their borders. i can tell you right now because of the inductions i am not fully competent that we are doing the best -- all that we can to weed out potential wrongdoers from these locations. the injection also prevents me from actually looking into the information that we need from each country to conduct proper screening, not just from the six countries identified in the executive order. but from every country across the globe. it also prevents me from detecting a review under the executive order with the goal to improve the security of our refugee program. bottom line, i've been enjoying what doing what i know would make america safe and i wait for the court to complete its jobs i can get to work. the men and women and dhs will do everything we can and always, always, within the law to keep

the american people safe. the delay has prevented us from doing that, what i in those most familiar with the reality of the sites we face, believe we need to do to protect our homeland. again, sir, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today and, i thank you for your continued support in the committee's continued support for the great men and women of the department and the mission we take seriously. i remain committed to working with congress in protecting the american people. i have made changes within the organization since i became department had to do exactly that. we want to increase responsiveness, availability and we've done all of that in a big way. i'm glad to answer any questions you may have, sir. >> thank you, secretary kelly. i approved the attendance by my colleagues. i know we have paint schedules. i will defer my questioning so people have their opportunities. all start out with senator mccaskill. >> i appreciate the note you ended on, secretary kelly. while i condemn the leak and the

person who leaked it, we now have in the public domain, verified information that the russians made an aggressive attempt to access, not only a vendor of voter software in this country, but also a number of states, the voter file database in the months prior to our election. in any other circumstance this would be an earthquake but because of everything going on i don't pay enough attention has been given to something that is your responsibility, secretary of homeland security and that is critical infrastructure including the election system. i have asked for a number of pieces of information, this is one area where we have not gotten a response yet and i do appreciate you all have not frozen us out, many of my

colleagues are being frozen out across the government. you're not frozen us out and i'm deeply grateful for that. i am anxious to get more information about what we know about these attempts. whether or not they accessed tabulation, it's clear they were trying to get in to that motor file. i don't think they were going there to try to just hang out. imagine the disruption we talk about voter id, imagine the disruption of thousands of people to vote and they were no longer on the voter file. what would be do? how would we address that in terms of fairness and open and free elections prescribed my question to you is are you deferring the investigation of this to the fbi? or is the department actively engaged in investigating the penetration or the attempt to penetrate the voter files in this country mainly before the election by the russian government? >> you know me, i won't dodge any question relative to

anything that anyone in the united states congress ask. i would say, though, upfront, because of the allegations and the things that have been allegedly released are so highly classified, i wouldn't want to confirm or deny anything in there. we just have to wait for the investigation. happy to come over, some people over to talk with you to the level that they can about what actually took place and i believe certainly, members of congress deserve that given the levels of classification. but i share your concern. i don't agree with anything you said, relative to the security of our process. clearly, it's an interagency investigation and that is taking place. dhs will be a part of it. as you know, just prior to his leaving, jake johnson went out and declared that the voter and the structure was critical infrastructure and i've had a large amount of back on that from states. many members of congress, it was

done before i took over and were looking at that trying to help the state understand what that means in its voluntary and were here to help so to speak. but i am meeting with the state's homeland security professionals and i'll put that question to them. should we back off, i don't think we should but should we be back off? you see us as partners and helpers in this to help us down inside the states and help you make sure that your systems are protected. there is nothing more fundamental to our democracy than voting. >> and following up with that, i hope that you convey it would be one thing for the state to say that we don't want the federal government -- i like that are government is decentralized. each government should be

telling the state how to run the votes but this was russia. this was russia, this was not some hacker at a university trying to screw around with one individual state. this was an international attempt to impact the elections of the united states of america so, it would really be distressing, if the united states didn't pull back from the ability to help states protect these voter files. you'll be in the best position to do that. is someone from the department working in the investigation? over this intrusion into our data files? >> yes, we are involved. >> the other area wanted to talk about and the chance to respond about cutting funding to the viper program and the law enforcement meme person program in the urban area grants that are so important to large cities in this country in terms of soft targets for terrorism.

could you address those cuts? if you would be okay with the fact that we would maybe want to restore those cuts? >> i'd like to comment, for sure. i referenced it a little bit in my opening statement that we are, as a nation, and a different place entirely from our law enforcement to local perfection view. when a different place than we were 15 years ago when 9111th took place. whether it's new york city, the largest non- federal law enforcement organization in the country, the new york city police department or a small town and counties with very few professionals this kind of thinking this anti- terrorism counterterrorism is in the dna. we have, certainly, should have, for 911 for years afterward, $45 million in 15 years help states whether it was to acquire

equipment, hire people, dod has a program where they give access equipment away and you know all of that so were in a different place today. new york city police department just up there last week and i sat with them for several hours putting their concept of how they protect the city from a terrorism point of view and i don't think there's anyone better in the world. in a perfect world, i'd love to fund everything but 15 years on we are in a different place locally and federally in terms of protecting the homeland. again, in a perfect world, i'd love to fund everything. >> i understand the point you're making although i will say that i don't think any of us would think the threat of a terrorist attack is less today than it was 15 years ago. i can speak for many of these communities that are struggling with enough officers now. st. louis is a good example

where we have a serious crime problem and in order to have the resources they need to cover the airports, to some of the things that this money allows them to do is really important i'm hoping that we can hope together. >> if i could respond, i wouldn't disagree at all. the threat since 911 is, i think, certain types of cards are much more than they were during 911 and much more metastasized. some of it local and some of the potential from outside the country. i'm with you 1000% but the one fundamental different is that we have different state, local and federal focus on this, training and equipping. >> we do mac yes, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. chairman. once again, thank you for being here secretary kelly. i thank you have bipartisan support on this committee because of your track record. you are in front of the subcommittee on homeland security here a few weeks back and i appreciate your testimony there. since then, it was reported that

the president's son-in-law, jared kushner, attempted to establish secret back channel communications with the kremlin through russian ambassador sergei. you were asked about these back channel communications with russia on tv and you supported kushner. i believe that these communications did occur whether it was classified or not there went through, it's a big deal. we are talking about rest. i looked up your age and i thought we might be similar in age and to your credit your little older but you look younger, okay? you remember russia and in the height of the cold war, i don't trust them anymore today than i did when i was a first grader in school. to have somebody this close to

the president sitting up back channels before they were in office throughout russian embassy is very disturbing to me, in fact, if this happened. so, have you spoken to mr. kushner about this issue? >> i have not. >> okay. has anyone spoken with him about this issue in your department? or to find out if this happened and what kind of information was related to? we heard the ranking member talk about potential into on elections and money going to the trap better business enterprise. there's all sorts of smoke here that we need to get to the bottom of. so, i'm curious about that. >> i hope no one in my department has spoken to him. that would be inappropriate. i'm the interaction with the white house, as a general rule. it doesn't work like many of the white house staff directly. >> if i could, that back channel to mitigation, i have back channel communications myself

through religious leaders in united states to leaders in sa, latin america. it's one thing if i call the president of the country and tell him, have a conversation with him and it's different if it comes from another direction. it's just the reality of way it works. >> i would offer to you sir, we have to make the exception and i will, the jared kushner is a great american, he's a decent american and he is a strict clearance of the highest level back he didn't then though, did he? >> i believe he should have. he was trying to open back to medications to pass information through that back channel to get to putin or anyone else, and say hey, look, were concerned about this or this is what you might want to consider doing because if it's official that is a whole different dynamic. >> i got you. >> the question is there is no

red flags that come up for you on the specific. >> not at the time, i didn't know about it since it's been reported. back channels are the normal -- >> can you tell me if it's also normal to go to an embassy of a country that has been our phone since world war ii? is that normal. >> i don't know if that was the case but if that is the case, i'm not sure it's normal but certainly, it would be one way to communicate through the back channel. so, if i were to do that, you would think that's okay? if i have a city clearance and i would walk over to an embassy and say, hey, look, i want to have a back channel to mitigation and by the way, even though it appears that nobody in the united states will know what i'm talking about and this is what i did, it's okay because -- >> if you went over, if you met

them here in the building or you went to the embassy, let me tell you something, as a senator from the senator of montana and a member of these committees this is bs, what you're doing and you got to stop it. that's essentially a back channel communication. >> i would say this. i appreciate your faith in the system but i will tell you that whether classified information was delivered or not i find this unacceptable. i just do. to have somebody who is a son-in-law to the president that goes in and sets up with russia -- the country that i was told to hide under the desk when the nuclear bombs came when i was in first grade i just think if we don't get to the bottom of what's going on or what's happening, we talked of the russians, we talked about money,

there's also the stuff going on here and it's clear, as the ranking member said, there's so much going on that we don't know which direction to have the investigation happen and, if it needs to be you, you got the credentials, by the way, and you have the respect on this committee and probably in congress to really find out what the hell is going on. it doesn't make me sleep better at night. if it doesn't make me sleep better, your eyes are probably wide open on this. >> again, we have to make the assumption that don't we should. numerous investigations will look into this. it's part of the bob muller investigation and there's a number of congressional committees looking into it. >> another topic, i want to echo what the ranking member said there have been folks that have been frozen out by different

agencies and that's inappropriate, when you're on the committee or a member of congress oversight is our big job. i appreciate you not doing that and i hope that policy continues. i would assume that would be the case, correct? >> yes, sir. if i could come in. as i'm going to the process of confirmation though senators and house members gave me the courtesy of an office call prior to the hearing. the one single thing i've had repeatedly is how nonresponsive this department, my department, our department was prior to. i would tell you since i've been running the show to the degree i think i'm running it, we've got over 37 appearances in professional hearings, 57 witnesses, 973 engagements and that is prior to that it was a tiny fraction. in fact, i was just talking with senator grassley who is the biggest critic over my department relative to the congressional engagement and i

was on an open phone with him and his staff and asked him how he was doing. he gave me nothing but high marks. will make them better. some of the things -- first of all were moving forward and whether it's regardless of who the letter comes from and it doesn't have to just come from a ranking member or german, we will respond to any congressional inquiry. if we can't get to it right away, some are lengthy, as you might imagine, my focus will call, if it falls into the category that we can't get to it real quick and respond, will call the staff and say, hey we got it and were on it but it will be some weeks or even perhaps months before we can get it to you. if need be, will send a letter or i will call the member and say, boy, this is a big one, and i'll have to set people to work and it'll be a while but people are on it. in every case, thus far, and certainly the last 90 days, 60

days anyways, we are getting high marks. thank you, mr. secretary. i look for to seeing you in montana. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you secretary kelly for being here today. i'd like to, once again, thank you for your trip to detroit. it was very well received by the community and i present you taking the effort to come out to my state. secretary kelly, i'm particularly concerned about the proposed cuts to several fema fairness grant programs that are in the president's budget. our first responders in michigan use the urban area security initiative and state homeland security program funding to support lifesaving efforts including bomb search and rescue equipment, simulation drills, maintenance of local early warning at emergency response senators, the proposed 25% cost share matching requirement for local governments would prevent a number of these efforts because, quite quickly, we don't have the money available for that cost share. i know you think it's important that their skin in the game and you use that term quickly, that our local communities have some cash as they are in these

matching programs but given the fact that we are facing a lone wolf attacks and a lot of changes in how our domestic homeland security folks have to deal with situations, do you believe -- how are they able to make the appropriate investments to make sure that their equipped for these types of attacks prescribed are there other alternatives or ways that we can perhaps adjust that figure in the budget? >> yes, senator. referencing a couple of my previous comments in this hearing as well as in the past: our local law enforcement city, state, county, big city, small city, there is a different place and they were in the real up to 911. where does matter much better at what we do. their head is in the game, they have skin in the game and the grants over the years, to a degree, cause that to happen

because we've given additional funding to the various municipalities to improve themselves. we are at the point now where much of that effort is already accomplished and were in a sustainment invade that is to say state and local governments need to sustain what we've helped them at the points and equipment that we help them get to, that combined -- there aren't unlimited researchers. you mentioned lone wolf attack. a lone wolf, and you know this are, i beg your forgiveness, i don't mean to lecture, not lecture but to go to low in terms of my response, the thing we are facing out the loan of the tax is additional dynamic. it is, absolutely, new york city is at risk, detroit is at risk, some tiny little town in the middle of arkansas is at risk. every small town, big town is at risk from the lone wolf stuff.

i don't know, as hard as i thought about it, if there's a way to prevent it, predict it, get our arms around it other than local cops and sheriffs getting into people's business legally, outreach and all that. my point is unlimited amounts of money, parceled out to every big city, small municipality in america, might prevent a lone wolf attack but i don't know if it will come in might. of course, we don't have an unlimited amount of money. we make these decisions, in many ways, based on for me was that we receive from the congress. we plug in numbers and try to somehow evaluate what might be a logical target. not necessarily for the low waffles, there are everywhere. but a target that might be at higher risk, say like new york city than other means the parties. >> i understand that and i appreciate the fact that this is a big challenge and that we don't have unlimited amounts of money.

i just want to challenge the assessment that other communities are adequately prepared for and certainly we have come a long way, we've come a long way in providing those resources and i'm hearing for my department in michigan that there are unmet needs as they are critical. resources are tight for them as well. we still have a ways to go. hopefully, we can revisit some of these matching programs to make sure that those communities that may be at the highest risk but also have fairly challenging budget situation in that community that were able to work something out. i'd appreciate having further discussion in that area. also, secretary, the first travel ban executive order required the secretary of homeland security to submit a report in 30 days to provide a list of countries that do not provide adequate information for betting. within 30 days of this order. my understanding is that the district court in seattle did

not stay or that aspect of the order, the second executive order required the exact same report within 20 days of its effective date and, as you know, aside from sections 206, the remainder of the revised executive order is not affected by any subsequent injunction. that means as of today, may 6, 2017, the report required by the first executive order is overdue by over 60 days more than twice as much time is required and report required by the second executive order is overdue by more about 30 days. secretary, did you begin the report reviewing screen procedures that the initial executive order required. >> we been very, very cautious. we been extra cautious and getting anywhere near where the court might consider not following the instructions. i would have to get back with you on exactly where we are on the reports in one of the things that regardless of whether the court has told us not to do, we've done things that we could do.

as an example, thinking about other countries is not studying them and looking at betting procedures, additional, extreme vetting but not studying it. some of the procedures are very obvious and some of the countries are obvious. if you don't mind, i'd like to get back to you on the question. >> i appreciate. the production will not limit you from doing your own internal reviews of policies and procedures. i'm glad. >> i have lawyers telling me that we are to close on some of these issues, not as silly once you've addressed but some of these issues and it's best just to show extra good faith and not getting too close to it. >> i appreciate the further discussions, as well. thank you mr. secretary. >> thank you, mr. chair and ranking member. good morning, secretary kelly. thank you for being here and

like all of my colleagues i appreciate your willingness to have a conversation. last week, i visited our base covering new hampshire's northern border with canada. the men and women at the station are working overtime and on a shoestring budget to secure our northern border, including intercepting human traffickers and preventing narcotics smuggling. i think they are doing an incredible job with the limited resources but they really need more support. while cdp is getting a huge boost in their funding in this budget we know that this funding isn't going to be used to shore up the northern border. it isn't just cdp's northern border forces, they are the only ones getting shorted in this budget is some of the other members have indicated, tsa, in charge of protecting our aviation borders and stopping terrorists from taking dane out our aviation system is facing a sizable cut to some of its key programs and renewed aviation threats. the coast guard, protect our nation's largest border but despite its aging and frankly, outdated facilities the coast

guard also getting cuts. this, a trend budget tells me that your priority is to secure the southern border and finding off all of the stress is secondary. i certainly support the southern border but this budget presents a false choice. we can and should suppor securee southern border but also secure our land, sea and airports as well. what is your plan for making sure that our northern border forces, tsa, and the coast guard get the funding increases they so desperately need? black senator, the good news is for my perspective and certainly, what i learned going on for months is that we have two great partners in this effort to secure our borders. canada and mexico. the bad news for mexico in the southwest border is that largely because of our drug demands an incredibly efficient network has developed that stretches frankly from around the world and go

through the western hemisphere of the caribbean into mexico and into the united states. that's for the overwhelming amount of drugs, illegal aliens and special interest to come through. because of that network. not because mexico is not a partner and they're not great friends but because of their unfortunately a striding on. thriving network or geographical feature that the drug traffic decided that's how they come in. >> secretary kelly, i'm well aware of that's. i'm also well aware of how able, nimble, evolving and creative these cartels and networks are. so, it just seems to me like a totally false choice. to leave a border inviting relatively open ended may disrupt things on the southwest border for a time but it doesn't

do us any good if there are other ports of entry. you talk the coast guard right now and they are not able to intervene in some of the narcotics traffic on our seas because they simply don't have the resources even when they know they're there. that would be a very important aspect of our war on this drug epidemic we have. >> you are right on the no's. right now, the southern border is the problem. if we were to seal the southern border and i believe we can -- i know will get control of our southern border. doesn't mean file but control it. we could go from where we are several months ago to almost no control to some pretty good control. they will, given the drug demands in the '90s, they will figure other ways to get through. we have to watch that and react to it. >> we also have to keep people in the northern part of our country safe. one of the things -- that's not a reassuring answer to new

hampshire and other border states. want to move on to another question we discussed when you were last year. i asked you about in in and the way to protect the dhs system from cyber attacks and the possible application pentagon's pilot program to use hackers to probe -- it was called hack the pentagon and it has been very successful. in those few weeks that the program iran, the pentagon collected 138 on discoverable all abilities. since then it has expanded the program and he is as launched a similar program. a little over a week ago senator portman along with i and other committees introduce the dhs act and that bill would instruct dhs to hold a pilot program to allow hackers to probe dhs systems for vulnerabilities and report them to dhs in return, dhs would pair

the hackers a small sum of money for each vulnerability they discover and report. as my friend senator harris said, we will fight hackers with hackers. as you can see, a lot has happened since were last year. at the last hearing you promised to look into whether the pilot program would fit with dhs. i'm asking you today that you take a hard look at this bill because a similar bill was introduced today in the house by representatives luanne taylor. would you just commit to taking a hard look at those bills and see what the department? >> i absolutely will. i will not wait to see if this law passes. >> okay. thank you. lastly, i just want -- i don't want to reiterate, like i said i have two more points. i don't want to reiterate everything that senator peter said but i will just let you know as a former governor who is in a state with lots of volunteer responders, part-time police departments and ongoing efforts to keep our state and do

our part for our country's national security our severe cuts to critical state aid in grant programs for everything from airport security to other kinds of security efforts to fight homegrown terrorism just like you have to train ongoing. you need ongoing resources. we have an enemy who is evolving. the notion that just because we made improvements since 911 we can absorb this kind of drastic cuts, i think is just a false notion. i would tell you that having talked with my homegrown security people in new hampshire about the myriad of threats that we are facing, the cuts here are really troubling. lastly, if i may, mr. tara, i would encourage and maybe we can talk off-line about the presidents opioid commission and

at the first reported is due shortly but we haven't heard anything about it. i know you're on the commission and i like to talk later. >> i could have a minute to respond. myself, rex tillerson, you may have not asinus with the mexicans a couple weeks ago but they're on board with our attempts to not only safeguard the southwest border and their northern border but get at the demand problem. secretary tillerson, secretary price, myself and the head of on dcp has spoken with and i'd like to think change his attitude with his job going forward. we'll get together and put some real energy behind the demand reduction to include, are busy, the opiates. i thank you will agree, we spoke about this is this overmedicated society that we suffer from in the united states.

it just suggest to people all i have to do is put something up their nose and in their mouth or on their arm to solve their problems. >> one of the things that will be really important and really concerning, i was, in the ministration support for eliminating things like medicaid expansion and requirements insurance companies treat addiction. this get that the overmedication and overprescribing issues. i look forward to talking with you more about that. thank you. >> i will, again, point out based on the baseline budget of 2,436,000,000 half has grown by inflation would be $48 billion and instead it's about 70. $22 billion more growth in spending for this apartment because of those evolving threats. i just want to point out the reality is in terms of the increase in spending over the last whatever it was, 13 years back i appreciate that, mr. chair. my concern is that we are only as strong as our weakest link. >> we don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish. we have dramatically increased our resources of this department.

>> secretary kelly, thanks for your testimony. the last time you were here we talked about us citizens coming across the border and being threatened with non- entry or detention if they did not divulge the contents of their phone, all the contents of the phone. the response was that we don't believe are doing it. we asked some questions in writing and were still waiting on response. it's been about six weeks or so. i thought i'd list for you a couple of the public episodes of this happening. this year, nasa engineer, and a us citizens was pulled aside for coming back from chile. they demanded the phone and they handed the phone while they had the right to copy the contents of his phone. all the contents of the phone. he recalled that the phone indicated his participation in the search was mandatory and threatened detention and/or seizure if he did not comply. the phone ironically was already a government phone, nasa phone that we are running searches. two assistants were stopped on

return from canada, nbc did an investigation of 25 different cases of us citizens being told to turn over their phones, unlock them or provide passwords. us citizen was taken off a flight in la, handcuffed and released after a homeland security agent looked through his phone for 15 minutes. a us citizen journalist was also had their phone taken but my question is is your answer still, i don't believe are doing it? >> my answer is we don't do it routinely unless there's a reason why. so that's a change. we do it whether their citizens or noncitizens coming in. of the billion or so they come in our country, half of 1% are checked. typically, the officer -- always according to the law. typically, the officers who are engaged in the front line defense at the point of entry in their questioning of individuals for whatever has to them off

will cause them to have certain conversations, go down certain avenues of not interrogation but again conversation in the event of some indicator that perhaps the individual is returning from sex tourism and we do catch a fair number of people in that regard. very seldom done and always for a reason and within the law. >> so the answer now is not just i don't believe are doing it it's we are doing it but not that often. >> right. >> the policy that they are being threatened with its attention, how long will they be detained if they don't give you the pin to their phone? >> is a relatively short period of time. it's generally a follow-up question once a decision might be made to put them into legal justice system.

>> to you, that still, you're just fine with the policy that says arbitrarily take someone phone and says you can't come back? >> there's a reason why they do it. no, it is arbitrary unless our rules into how you do it. in our country, if you want to look at my phone you have to phone a judge. this wouldn't necessarily be american jurisprudence if you're just saying we might have some internal rules. have you published the roles? >> at the point of entry, whether a citizen or noncitizen the officers have procedures to follow but certainly rights to checked baggage and in this case, look into electronics. there are procedures whether they're published or not are specific enough to publish but i can certainly, get back to you. we also like to see the form that threatens them with detention and/or seizure if they don't comply. >> sure. >> i can tell you i am not happy

with the policy and i wish it were different. we had actually introduced legislation to try to stop you from doing this and to make you go to federal courts the way we do in our country, typically. we go to a court and you ask a judge and you to present evidence, you have to specify an individual and you have to have a reason for doing it. >> what that law office prohibit us from looking at the bags. >> know, and i think there's a difference. that's the whole point here. looking at someone's luggage were in immediate threats to the country, to the people, to the plane, et cetera, we decided that within scope of your jurisdiction. looking at someone's phone is a much more personal, extensive look into their life. we just don't thank you should be -- it sort of horrifies us to think that you couldn't come back into your country. people are now talking and therefore people giving advice to not take your phone abroad

because when you come back home your country won't let you come home unless you let them look at your entire life. that doesn't seem like a fair trade-off to be able to travel for safety. there is a point in which we give up so much of our liberty to travel that hasn't been worth it really? we can live in a secure state if we clampdown and we had no freedom to travel. and we give up all of our privacy to travel. i don't think that's necessary. i think there can also be two different standards, frankly. there can be one standard for someone who's coming for the first time from afghanistan who has one name and no background. i'm with you. we need to do scrutiny. but if an american president leaves and comes back, for goodness sake, they should be protected by the bill of rights when they come home

>> with the courts and to any law we have been very reserved and that. there are two aspects of this, some that i control it's on the state department controls. the state department has recently issued a number of additional questions that their office will ask those that want to visit the united states on visas. that is a bit easier because typically those people would present a passport and there has

always been questions in place they would ask, now there will be additional questions about where they live, it could be access to electronic devices but that is outside the country. in the case of refugees the senator knows that in many cases the refugees we deal with have no paperwork we can rely on we have to take their word for it. the un, as hard as they try the last time i was here they talked about my interactions with the un, they are in the same position although they are not in a position to allow people to come to a given country. as they do their initial refugee screening, they do refugee registration, what is your name, where you're from, all of that taken a good faith. then it comes to us. in the past we have exercised too much good faith on the

things we're looking at is okay. if you don't have a passport you don't have proof of who your, that we need to know additional facts and figures about you. how do you support yourself in a given country, to have any way to prove that you work for a living so we can prove who you are? what village are you at? can you give us points of contact that we can call in that kind of thing. in many cases these refugees do not have that so it would be very hard for me a good faith to move them into the united states to establish a home here. what will give us an advantage is when we start to deal with them on social media accounts. their telephone, registration and that kind of thing. >> what about the visa waiver countries? you mentioned that as we inflict

on isis in the middle east there are individuals who are returning to other western european and other countries with which we have visa waiver in place. what extra procedures and precautions are taken with protecting them? >> there are 38 visa waiver countries. i know you realize this, they are countries that have more or less what we have. they have a working relationship with the united states. they have a u.s. embassy, locally to handle our affairs and look out for us. they have been fbi and to the intelligence community and databases that allow us to tap into what they do. that is getting better. i've commitments to many countries around the world on the laptop and we have implemented about mid-march.

were in very good shape in those countries. we have confidence in their systems and how they interact. not every country in europe is a visa waiver country. they don't have what they we think they need. we set the bar high and they have certainly 38 have met that part. the long pole in the tent, as jim comey would say, the database is only good if you are on it. not to get into it, i do not want to be to open about this in an open hearing. some of the most recent terrorist in england for the u.k. may not have been on any of those lists. had they decided to come they

would have been able to buy a ticket and fly to the united states. their baggage would have been subject to the normal protocols. my sense would be as they would not be getting on the airplane with a bomb. if they got here then it would possibly be problematic. the point is, there is a certain point where if we had a visa waiver program or not. the 38 countries that are on it and are committed to making it better. right now i am comfortable with where we are in. >> clearly we have to react to events and take extra precautions. >> we do. >> in regard to the senator's comments, one of the best tools

you have we talked about this is the unmanned aerial systems. kevin in your acting director who is fantastic was out in grand force. all the way through lake superior and montana, it is a great tool. your co- located and were working and looking at new facilities. i ask her strong support in that effort. also, with the technology park we have their at the air airport base is unique opportunity to develop that ua us tool. i want to commend him to you and ask you for your support. that can really address some concerns. >> i agree with you. thank you for the comments about kevin.

>> i cannot wait to get him confirms. thank you for all you are doing. >> senator harris. >> secretary kelly, as a follow-up to the senators questions you mentioned that you have back channel conversations with -- is that correct? >> people i could rely on to pass information to, for leade leaders. >> was that in your current capacity of the cabinet? >> those in my capacity in uniform. >> i would not hesitate to do it now. >> did you initiate any of those conversations such that you initiated there take place inside the embassy of a foreign government? >> i got embassies in my current and past assignments. all met with members of the diplomatic of other countries.

>> have you initiated that. >> can i finish what i'm saying. >> as opposed to attending -- >> i've had conversations with members of foreign diplomats in various places. i've talked to them about my perception of what they could do better response to things that the united states government would like to see them do. >> thank you. secretary kelly, included in the budget is a provision that says the secretary of homeland security may condition a grantor cooperative agreement awarded by the department of homeland security to a state or political subdivision of a state for a purpose related to immigration, national security, law-enforcement, or presenting, preparing for, protecting against, or responding tax of terrorism. specifically it authorizes the secretary to condition grants compliance with any lawful request to dhs to detain an

alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, are you familiar with that? >> yes. fairly familiar with it, yes. >> grant subject to new conditions would include the urban area security initiative, dhs grant that provided california last year with $124 million per to help urban areas to help prevent, mitigate and respond texas terrorism. it supports more than 100 incorporated jurisdictions in 12 counties in the bay area of california. it's a person to buy equipment, enhance systems, and conduct trainings. so that they can litigate mitigate exit terrorism. >> that is a good thing. >> another dhs grant is a state homeland grant program that provided california $60.2 million last year to support state, local, tribal efforts.

and to prepare the nation for threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk for security in the united states comes a crack? >> i wish i had the same document i could read from. >> are you familiar with this grant program? >> i am. >> are you aware that there are number federal courts that have impose civil liability and local governments for confine with ice detainee orders that were not spurred by probable cause? >> am i aware of that? yes. >> in order than to comply with the 48 hour ice to tenormin with no probable cause, wouldn't that force the jurisdiction to choose whether to comply with the federal court really or if it were vital provide public safety funds by your department? >> i'm not a lawyer, i think federal laws federal laws state law state law. if we have a different view of the impact of state relates. >> imagine sir, if you will if you are local law enforcement leader.

you're presented with a choice of either complying with federal law that means you may expose your department and your jurisdiction to civil liability, or forfeiting dhs funds that are designed and intended to help you fight terrorism at a local level. wouldn't you agree that puts those law-enforcement leaders in a difficult choice. how are they supposed to choose? >> hat had jeanette cut me off notice of the same thing you would've said, not as eloquently. i appreciate the fix they are in. i appreciate they get their legal advice from the state and locals. below the radar we loo work with every police and sheriffs department in this country to agree that they can and are comfortable with. >> what you mean, below the radar? they have two choices. >> they are accountable to their

jurisdiction, to the bodies that may have appointed or elected them. they have to make choices. what you mean, below the radar? >> we tucked them on the telephone. >> what are you instructing them to do? >> whatever they can do within the lock of interpretation, we are willing to work with them. >> 's are you aware that their local law enforcement. >> let me finish once before you interrupt me. >> sir, with all due respect -- >> with all due respect, senator. >> are you instructing local law enforcement leaders that they can overlook a dhs retainer request so they are not exposed to criminal liability? >> we talk to them about whatever they're comfortable with them whatever they think they can do within the interpretation of their local attorneys general for example, or local lawyers --

>> excuse me i'm asking the questions. >> but i'm trying to answer the questions. >> when they tell you, as i know local police chiefs are being told that it would expose the municipality to civil liability if they comply with the detainer request, are you telling them that they will not you will not withhold the dhs federal funding they rely? >> before start the answer, willing to let me finish? >> if it's responsive to the question, of course. >> we talk to them on the phone and tell them whatever they're comfortable with and within the interpretation of the local lawyers and legal advisors who work with them. >> 's are you willing then to not withhold federal funding when police chiefs tell you that they cannot comply with the detainer request because they have been told by their lawyer that they will expose their jurisdiction our department to civil liability? >> i'm willing to work with them

in any way i can within the law of federal and local law. whatever they're comfortable with. i don't make threats to people, senator. >> thank you. >> by the way, there is a very simple fix for this predicament and it's a heater predicament. let's pass a law to give those local law enforcement officials liability protection against civil suits. as part of the sanctuary city law that could clear up the difference. it's a simple fix which i would support. >> i would support any fix that would not withhold funding for local law enforcement to meet the demands they face around combating terrorism. >> so this could be a bipartisan solution here. civil liability protection against civil suits so local law enforcement are not caught between a rock and a hard place in a difficult situation. let's work on that together. i'm sure secretary kelly would work on that as well. >> secretary, thank you.

when i first are the words, saint elizabeth i thought why would we spend that much money on creating a campus, a home would enable the leadership to improve the morality of the employees and implement the plan for this campus. they have the same kind of misgivings as i had with the proposal. will you take a moment to tell us if he had a feel for this, what you think we ought to do and how does the budget take us in that direction, or not? >> i cannot count the number of locations around the city,

various parts, every part of homeland security is spread out all over. to bring all, most of it or some of it together makes sense for the point of you for time management, first of money. we spent a huge amount of money renting choice, don't on real estate in the city. we could avoid much of that. if we realize if and when saint elizabeth open, billions of dollars in savings over five and ten years. the other issue is time management. it takes me half an hour to get where i sit most of the time to meet with cdp and half an hour to get back. sometimes i do that two or three times per day. it kills either my time management or theirs. i do the best i can not to inconvenience the people that work for me.

it would be an advantage to be more or less in one place. saint elizabeth seems to be the locale. frankly, as i have gotten smart in that particular location there are some worker issues that we need to sort out and we can do that in terms of transportation, access to metro. overall it would be a cost savings as well as the time savings if we are to consolidate the headquarters effort in one location. >> there two pieces of funding, one is for gsa and the other for the department of homeland security. one for infrastructure. one is the gsa pieces funded in the 18 budget, dhs funding is not there. i like to follow up with you on that. the appropriators, some of this committee i believe. when you go to the southern board and we see some substantial increases in funding

for funding for ice and detention centers. also money for what i call force multipliers and i'm a big believer that we need a 2000 -- law. these have been demonstrated effective has been good. we've talked often about root causes and why the people continued to come from a non- insatiable demand for drugs. we set up something called prosperity couple of years ago actually to try to emulate what has been accomplished. you have a sense of what has been going on in the goals they

set themselves? >> a great question great story, not perfect, but a great story. based on the confidence the previous administration put in recognizing that first of all it's a hippo problem in much is generated by our insatiable appetite for drugs. much as columbia was 20 years ago and is not today. so the miracle can happen. columbia did it. frankly at the time it was put together by the united states congress with the resistance with other places. i think they put some american money but ultimately when people say it cannot happen i tell them to look at columbia. the alliance for prosperity in countries putting their own money into and then through the congress and vice president biden was a huge help with this

we got u.s. funding against it and controlled in the right way. what is happened in central america since we worked on the alliance for prosperity. violence is down. hunters, el salvador, and honduras used to be the most violent areas. they cut their murder rates by one third or more. still horrific but cut it all with human rights and mine. they have a long way to go. their economies are starting to grow. they have their arms around the corruption. for five years ago when i took -- everything was going in the wrong direction. i just read a report this morning where they have either stabilized, not getting worse or not getting better. that is huge.

i think you know in addition to my outreach, back channel communication in some respects to the leadership down there through religious organizations and ngos so i do not make it official but they know where i am and where i'm going on this issues, we have also asked them trust their citizens to not waste the money and had north, and i can other dangerous network that i described before and stay where they are. if they come here this is no longer an illegal alien friendly environment. as you know 1.1 million people a year. don't waste your money, don't go on to dangerous network, what we're doing we put together the dhs the energy behind it and have passed it off to the state department. next week in miami we are bringing together as cosponsors of the conference on the

northern countries mexico, great country in the united states cosponsoring, we have observers coming in canada, spain, costa rica panama, colombia peru for a conference led by the vice president. i will be there secretaries to listen as well as home commerce and treasury will be there. the point is the first day will bring together investors to do the best we can to stimulate what is going on in those three countries economically and then the next day will be security issues to get out to human trafficking and drug trafficking. i was with haiti working on another issue suggesting the haitian president, board for one of those days so what we're trying to do is help them solve their problems at home economically. live help themselves in the

right direction on security, and with a little luck we might actually be able to help them. but if we don't reduce the drug demand in the united states for heroine, cocaine and methamphetamine this is a waste of time. >> the secretary said i asked a great question. i thought he gave a great answer. i think you made the case for continued support for the alliance of prosperity. just like in clumpy did you say columbia would not come in to solve your problems you said you can do it and we can help. you made the case that i'm delighted to hear, i don't believe our schedules allow us to participate unfortunately. but my thoughts and prayers will be with you in this regard.

thank you. >> just a moment of clarification. you mentioned 2000 miles. so there's no confusion, this budget is requesting 74 miles of fencing. sixty new miles of fencing, 14 replacement i was down there and it is amazing how many holes have been cut into the san diego law and repaired. the 60 new miles and 28 is part of a levee system. were talking about 74 miles over 1700 - 2000-mile. that's a reasonable request. >> thank you mr. chairman. and welcome mr. secretary. you know my question will be, how soon are we going to see the northern border report is mandated by federal law? >> i do not know but let me take it for the record. >> it obviously we would hope we see it in june, i think we have

reason to believe it will be delayed. it makes my broader point which is, we need a strategic plan in terms of border security. one thing we hear about his fencing. i spent a lot of time on the southern border. i believe barriers can be effective, as they have been in the san diego area. again we know most drugs, at least the previous administration would tell us most of the drugs are coming through the points of entry. and now walking across the border in remote locations. what additional strategies to have to do additional screenings? where's the investment in more personal, more screenings at the points of entry? >> in a sense that is part of the border strategy, there's no doubt and i know a lot about

this for my last job in particular, there's no doubt that heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine primarily come through the border and vehicles. marijuana is sometimes come through the desert. for the most part, the three big killers in the united states come in and if kevin -- a tremendous professional and dedicated, my hope is that the senate confirms him. he is already in a role that makes him very valuable. i asked him to look at the technology after next in terms of looking into vehicles, tractor-trailers and things like that. and to look at the voids as they're called so we can decide which vehicles get searched and broken down.

. . to identify. >> to raise a concern, we obviously have in the past had a pretty good relationships with the country of mexico. we saw in the regional election the party coming very close and not getting a majority.

i just ask and urge you given your experience in the region to encourage the administration to look at the entire relationship whether it is a trade relationship, border security relationship or just respectful talks. that does us no good. i want to cover a couple quick points. i have beekeepers -- i have beekeepers that can't get seasonal workers in for the h. two b. visa and the workers cannot wait. how long do you think is a proper timeframe to get an answer on whether we can get workers in the country and what are you doing to meet the requirements for the seasonal

workers? >> the workers, i know we'd already had large numbers of command coming in over the years but looking at the labor, in the current administration this is about american jobs versus the people that came into the work. >> i have doctors that can't get in. if the administration wants to send the doctors and a whole list of americans that want the jobs, we will be glad to do that. if we have to recognize especially as it relates to physicians that is expert really difficult. and we have seasonal workers we obviously would love to hire locally, but that would become increasingly impossible. i will sub it's a question for the record because i'm running out of time and i want to get enough of this in.

if you look at local border enforcement, the critical component in states like ours isn't just technology like the senator talked about, but having a strategy and a plan and strategy and plan to involve local law enforcement. you have border patrol that went there patrolling the border in radio contact with to deploy. so we would have to have backup. one thing that concerns me and goes to the grants and this idea we can cut the grant programs and provide the services. for the safety of the personnel

that were on the border, i would ask you to pay close attention for local law enforcement and first responders. they are forced to multiply gears and without those resources they have to cut back and that reduces the readiness. i don't think there is any doubt about this. thank you, mr. secretary. i think we sold an awful lot of that problem and as a comment to the majority and minority staff as well as the secretary, we should have an alert for witnesses to be prepared to answer questions over the northern border. there's not much northern border represented on this committee.

>> my northern border is kansas. we've had our moments, but we are getting along just fine. you and i have spoken in the past two weeks and some of the extensions at the time we talked before about your going to try to get back quickly. there's been a delay. the past issues are working through implementation such that it's an automatic if you are making progress and working in implementation it seems to have deleted this time in the last second. help me understand a little bit better so we can take that back.

>> today was the day that normally i would have made the decision to extend. i think the senator knows before anything would stop i have a little bit of time and i sent my staff back to take a hard look where most states are compliant but is only onis only one statet under high belief if all of the privacy smith will not make it. i've asked my folks to go back and start looking at some of the state that haven't been as active as they should have been over the last 12 years to implement. they've been in contact with these states, the governors, the attorneys general, whoever's in charge. we have for the most part

commitments from the states to get at this issue. but if we go back just one time and talk to the states about the extension of what it means, bottom line and that meeting they told me three months ago we had stayed that were not even paying attention to this that were getting dangerously close to not being able to implement before the deadline. they've all got the message with the exception of one state. they are all doing the right thing getting close to it. i know i will make a decision to extend for six months through october and we will take a hard look at them but the good news is what they love pushing and shoving over the last ten years or so, most states are on board and i believe all but one will be compliant. >> let me give you a couple of insight pieces.

we have time until late july. let's say dhs says it isn't going to be extended, then that means in the summer time it takes six weeks minimum to be able to work for a federal courthouse and tell everyone you're going to have to have something different. to get their paperwork together to be able to do that, but we are out of time. once you get through to know the deadline is coming up you have drivers doing deliveries and refreshing the convenience store in a federal building and people growing i and groceries in the facility onto a military base.

i can't even come and do that without an escort so that will be a big issue. there are other ways to polygraph. the techniques and questions and thingof questions andthings likn the vetting process.

the state and local health polygraph that are a lot less. by contrast of six or seven hours. let me ask about the entry and exit program. we've spoken about this before. at the ports of entry the exit. i guess what i'm trying to figure out is we are trying to implement that is nationwide are

we on track at this point to implement that. there was an announcement made to extend it for six months they raised a red flag. it may or may not be there. what i want to ask you is is this an alert for salvador the dhs is going to look at the situation that started in the temporary status and ask if the situation has changed. >> it is an alert with that sad for whatever reason once someone goes on the status traditionally or historically they automatically do it.

they were put on status because of a hurricane that happened over 20 years ago. in many ways, better. the program is for a specific event and haiti had horrible conditions before the earthquake and they are not much better and that is how i would have to look at it. i don't want to get too far out front here and i wouldn't suggest anything to congress but it's about two to 400,000 people in the vast majority behave and

have clearly gotten the option on the rest of it. they are here more or less legally. the solution is to look at them and say how many do we know and use that against the 1.1 million migrants with a way to its citizenry. i can look at the situation say seven years it's a long time, but it is not so long. 20 years is kind of hard but i would like to see this assault in another way. i do not have the ability to solve it.

you need to think about the travel documents and these people who by the way are generally educated, entrepreneurial and would be i think a boost to the haitian economy and social function. they married local men and women so they need to consult with an immigration expert.

montana passed a law for the real id that i think is going to bring us a solution to what we faced by the way. we still need an extension to get it put in place. you can get a real id compliant driver's license or one that's not and pay for the compliant but we have a path going forward and need an extension to the system implemented to sign the bill. we finally have a path forward for quite some time. i've got to say the chart you shared shoving the reduction in apprehension across the southwest border i think is one of the most under told stories in the country at the moment. to think that we have seen a nearly 70% drop in the eu legal southern border crossings in the first few months of leadership,

and it was accomplished by sending a message to the world and particularly down south that the united states would enforce its law. thank you as we are a nation of law and not delete the and we need to get this message out more. i have spoken to a lot of my friends and constituents back in montana and that message needs to get out. so, congratulations. as we have seen these in one and, there is breaking news now the last few hours. i will continue to work with you

to show the resources to keep the nation safe. secretary, we've discussed the impact of methamphetamines coming from the south baccarat montana families. senator peters joined me introducing the family support act to help these children but we also need to fight against the flow of drugs. i know that the cbp is requesting an additional $2.9 billion. what will this mean for the interdiction of at the border? >> a drop in the bucket. we talked about this and made a few comments in this hearing. we've got to take a much more holistic approach and demand reduction rehabilitation,

certainly law enforcement plays a role in the homeland. i think it gets more and more important. to use an example of heroin and meth, they are cooperative with us. just recently but in the last 60 days, they destroyed the two massive methamphetamine labs. the production is migrated so heavily towards mexico and this is the balloon when you talk about. when we do something effective to get a way around it and it is a cat and mouse game dot never ended. so they pass the legislation ten years ago, something like that, and it restricted the precursor chemicals, the availability for

the precursor chemicals up until that point it was made in places in the united states and little laboratories. the cartels as they've become more sophisticated since we are responding to a market so that's why it's migrated in terms of restricting the precursors and then simply taking it out and marketing it. so that is primarily a solution to the problem working with mexico and the southwest border for sure and increasing the amount we take. it really is all about the

demand reduction. they tell you that any population including people that are predisposed to be addicted to something that an awful lot of these people in my personal experience as a kid, an awful lot of people start doing drugs because it is cool, there is no argument against it and they are hooked on something and can't get away from it. we have solved, i appeared in this hearing a year ago and talked about this issue of how we have managed to convince people over the years seatbelts and smoking, a lot of different things. if we could get a comprehensive demand it's not law enforcement, it is college sports, the united states, the senate, everybody

out there. we can solve this problem or reduce the problem significant significantly. it is a holistic thing and it is not just the cbp on the border. it's the right approach and i want to shift gears and talk about fiber if the budget request reflects it as a national priority they would help meet the current cyber threats. if it is the rapid innovation act for the science and technology directorate for the

limited resources with the private sector for the next start our production capabilities. >> i would like to say a couple of words about the effort right now on the morning that the malware was unleashed on europe and i went to the white house situation room as we watched it affecting hundreds of thousands of systems. we made the notification to those private and public entities that we deal with constantly.

they start to do the forensics. what is it's made u it made up d it come from. and i am very proud to say that every one in the room was constantly deferring to what is next. the predecessors and congress and others, that' that malware o the united states but was contained to a handful of systems and contained in the systems. it is as if it never came across the ocean so to speak. and we helped the nations overseas to contain it. we need to get better because the change is morphing into

increasing the protections better than they are. i'm grateful for your leadership and the early result we are already seeing. thank you. >> i have a couple closing questions. i am concerned about funding for the coast guard's. i was hoping the department of defense may have a fair amount of funding that they contribute about half a million dollars per year. the budget was about 9.6 billion now it is 10.6 billion. a 10% increase but with the kind

of threat we are facing, is a kind of comfort that that is adequate? >> i think it is an amazing organization. i came to my view at the southern command i seldom sprinkled round of the world in places like that but it came into my view in the southern command about how good they are. they are one of the five military services and in my opinion exactly the right place. the dhs. but in the myriad of methods that they execute it makes them value added but it's not big enough. the biggest problem with the coast guard we need to recapitalize.

all of this is not to mention we've got to get involved in the arctic more than we are. we have a couple of book broken down icebreakers we are looking to buy. we've got to be up there not to contest anybody' any of these ct to simply work up there as importantly to work in the environmental protection but it's not big enough. >> your former predecessor gave a speech and talked about the impact of the visa waiver program i am concerned about the

destabilizing nature of russia and the pervasive campaign and if we ignore central and southeastern europe they don't join the west. they made a powerful comment about how the visa waiver program was the sort of stamp that would remain in the west and stay western facing. i personally think it enhances our security. there are risks associated with it, but the safeguards put in place to qualify. the secretary certainly offered every ounce of help that he could have. can you just comment on your

program of the expansion for every one of those nations wants it. >> i would love to extend it to everybody. we set the bar very high in countries that meet that standard, welcome aboard. i share your concern and there is kind of a sidebar comment when i was working in belgium years ago as a kernel. they had followed al fallen allr themselves. how do we become observers, that has been cooled a little bit for whatever reason why don't you and i both know the reason. so i think anything we can do to extend it to good news is there are those trying to get up to our level of security to satisfy us. >> we should try to review some

of those to maintain the kind of security we are looking for. >> i think some people may view this with skepticism, but i was just assuming even with this injunction in place the department would move forward in the vetting process and you said that injunction has inhibited your efforts. the ranking member may want to jump into this but in greater detail, how that injunction is hampering your efforts moving forward in terms of the refugees and people coming into the country's. we get a lot of phone calls about how i'm not following some law. i've learned early on if there is a perception we are not

executing then a lot of people get agitated. whether it is by people of the csi s.. we are changing the culture to say if you want to come to america, you convinced me you know who you are.

it will come to the united states for all the right reasons and if you stay it will be in the society. so, the studies worldwide and throughout the region is the best way to. i've looked briefly at the decision in either the state department is moving forward. you are not restricted in terms of moving forward and the job regardless of the request by the executives to pause.

you are preparing to undermine policies. i can't imagine anybody is going to argue with you about the fact you should be preparing policies to keep the country safe. we have now been paused. there's been plenty of time for the policies to be done. to give more clarity about what the extra vetting is going to be. >> department makes sure they -- at the risk of running through too much of the work some of the examples i would give him is enhanced interviews and

biometrics integration and data collection, so we are doing something. and i could go on if you want. ..

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

medical technology company executive found new ways to deliver care -- health care in the health care industry or a discussion hosted by pepperdine university. this is one hour and 20 minutes. please welcome to the stage john figueroa cochair of the health care symposium committee and ceo

of genoa health care. [applause] >> what an incredible morning. the insight that doctoring emanuel regarded the results in the future the affordable parents as well as integrated care and power industries moving to a value-based system was fascinating. equally as intriguing was the description of our complex and ever-changing health care system by our esteemed panel of doctors and health care administrator's. i trust that their years of practical experience and i trust that they have certainly confirmed the complexity of our health care system and the speed in which it's changing in america. i'm going to take a little bit of a different view on this some of his comments consistent with