taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov. appreciate it when you stop by. come back again. >> thank you. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. and coming up tomorrow morning, texas tribune political reporter abbey livingston will join us to discuss the super tuesday reports from the primary in texas. also lawrence huhurley will cal in live to discuss the first major abortion case to go before the supreme court since 2007. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning

live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. join the discussion. i will go here with aarp. the candidates are standing about social security and how they are planning on saving it. if they are, what are they going to do to save it? >> i'm participating because i feel like it's very important to get out and vote, because this is really the only way, besides local elections, that we can voice our opinions. u.s. customs and border protection commissioner gil kerlikowske briefed on his budget request. he took questions on the influx of unaccompanied minors at the border, implementing visa waiver program restrictions and

combating drug trafficking. this house appropriations subcommittee hearing is just over an hour and 45 minutes. >> all right, i'm going to call the hearing to order. today we welcome gil kerlikowske. his third appearance before the subcommittee. commissioner, welcome. appreciate you being here and your service to dhs and the nation, thank you for that. fiscal year 2017 budget for customs and border protection is $13.9 billion. an increase of 686 million above fiscal year 2016. unfortunately, gimmicks in the department wide budget have created a $2 billion gap that requires this subcommittee to make hard choices. therefore, the increase to cbp

may not be affordable as it's evaluated by the totality of this budget. we discussed this between the two of us yesterday. or the other day. commissioner, as you know, i discussed this with you. we're really concerned about cbp's hiring problems that have to be fixed. to secure and expedite trade, the budget requests funds for 23,861 cbp officers, which include 2,000 officers funded in 2014. commissioner, taking four year, to hire 20,000 cbp -- 2,000 cbc officers is way too long. i know you plan to send a request to the authorizers, asking them to pass legislation increasing the number of cbp officers. knowing that wait times don't

deserve cbp because cbp isn't likely to have these officers on board for years. 2014. look where we are now. likewise, the border patrol is losing more agents than it can hire. currently, cbp is 1,268 agents below the mandated floor. the budget takes advantage of this by increasing the mandate. unfortunately, the reduction isn't supported by any analysis proving that border security won't be compromised as a result. commissioner, as you understand the important national security role these agents play, but we are concerned that cbp isn't able to sustain the existing workforce, let alone the mandated floor levels of the agents. these are urgent problems, which must be fixed.

now, we'll have to discuss how you plan to correct this. this request also includes a contingency fund for potential surge in unaccompanied children. we look forward to an update of the current estimates of the uac. other increases include $55 million for tactical communications, $47 million for vehicles, $26 million for aerostats and relocatable towers and many other smaller increases. i look forward to working with you over the next few weeks to determine the priority of these programs. the request proposes a realignment for appropriation structures to be more mission focused. while i know it is challenging, it is an effort that i have supported for several years. i want to commend you and your team for making the effort. lastly, commissioner, sovereign

nations control and manage their borders. and sustain the integrity of their immigration systems. these objectives are your duty and i expect nothing less from you and from the men and women of cbp. now, let me turn to my distinguished ranking member miss roybal-allard for remarks she wishes to make. >> thank you. good morning, commissioner, and welcome. the request for u.s. customs and border protection in fiscal year 2017. it's $11.3 billion, an increase of $609 million above the fiscal year 2016 level. about half of that increase is attributable to the proposed transfer of the office of bio metric identity management from mpd to cpc. you have served as commissioner now for nearly two years and cbp has made good progress in a number of areas under your leadership and i'd like to highlight some of those.

this includes the establishment of the task force west for the southern border. the assumption of criminal and investigative authority for allegations of misconduct and use of force incidents involving cbp personnel. the expansion of the preclearance program which helps address threats before they reach our borders. a new use of force policy and the establishment of a use of force center of excellence. business transformation efforts that are reducing wait times for passengers and expediting the flow of commerce. good progress toward a more rigorous technologically based methodology for determining situational awareness at the border. a more risk based approach to border security. and enhanced capacity to target high-risk individuals and cargo, including a new counter network program focused on disrupting transnational criminal organizations. so i think there is a lot that you can be proud of, even if

there are still significant challenges that still remain. one of those challenges has been the struggle to hire new agents that officers and manage attrition, particularly border patrol agents. as a result, the number of border patrol agents and cbp officers are significantly below the target levels as the chairman mentioned. other ongoing challenges include humanely managing the influx of unaccompanied children and families fleeing violence in the northern triangle. i look forward to a productive conversation on these and other issues. once again, i appreciate your joining us. >> thank you. >> all right. commissioner, we'll hear from you and what your comments are. we all have copies of what you submitted to us. of course they'll be narrated for the record. you may proceed. >> good.

chairman carter, ranking member roybal-allard and members of the subcommittee, good morning. during this past year, i certainly had the firsthand opportunity to travel not only throughout the country and visit with thousands of our personnel, but also to meet with our international partners in customs and border protection, particularly in south america, mexico and canada. these are countries we share common goals with and strengthening both our country's security but also our economic growth. i highlight this because with all of our responsibilities to protect the united states from the entry of dangerous people and materials, we also have to facilitate the flow of lawful international travel and commerce. and these goals are the same for many other countries. while i'm reminded of the diversity of our operational environments, the complexity of our mission and the commitment of our dedicated personnel. and thanks to the critical resources that this committee

has given to cbp, we've not only enhanced border operations, we've also laid the foundation for the changes that will increase cbp to be more operational agile, effective and efficient. many of these changes are focused on improving the hiring and retention of frontline personnel. i think we've made forward progress and i look forward to working with the committee on this. our budget request of $13.9 billion reflect some of the progress that we made and supports our continued investments and personnel and technology and initiatives that are going to strengthen our security and streamline our business process. detecting and preventing travel to the united states by a foreign terrorist fighter is our highest priority. we recently made additional enhancements to the electronic system for travel authorization. we started immediately enforcing the restrictions in accordance with the visa waiver improvement, and terrorist prevention act in 2015 and we canceled 17,000 travel approvals immediately.

we're expanding preclearance operations. i'd like to express my thanks to the subcommittee for the statutory changes that significantly improve the reimbursement mechanism to fund cbp's preclearance operations. it's a critical capability for addressing threats long before they ever arrive at our borders. furthermore, with the funding provided by the committee and the consolidated appropriations act of 2016, we're initiating counter network operations at our national targeting center. this capability enhances our comprehensive understanding of emerging threats not only for foreign fighters but also for drugs and human trafficking. and it advances our ability to disrupt the networks from that targeting center many of you have visited. along the southwest border, we monitor and respond. the numbers declined from their spike in '14 but we did see an increase in the numbers this past fall and we remain

concerned about seasonal increases later this year and in fiscal year 2017. the budget request $12.5 million increase in resources for cbp to provide for safety and security of children and families who are temporarily in our custody. in addition to a contingency fund of up to $23 million to support up to 75,000 children to ensure that we can respond to that potential surge. along with all of the border environments, our land, air and sea, continued investments in technology, surveillance technology, other operational assets really increase our situational awareness. the cornerstone of our approach to identify, disrupt and interdict illegal activities is key. recapitalizing some of the most essential equipment that was mentioned, radios and vehicles, increasing our ability to respond quickly and to keep our frontline officers and agents safe. we continue to improve the

secure and efficient movement of people and goods through the entry. that's a function critical to our economic competitiveness. the budget request enables us to continue frontline hiring efforts, incorporate new technologies into our travel and trade processes including bio metric exit and expand our public/private partnerships key components of our efforts to optimize resources, ease the flow of low risk lawful trade and travel and free agents and officers to focus on high risk cargo and high risk people. in all our operations across the globe, we continue to instill the highest levels of transparency and accountability. this past year, we implemented new use of force policies. we continued to test camera technologies to find solutions that can meet the wide variety of operational terrains and climates where our agents and officers work. thank you for the opportunity to testify. thank you for your support. i'm happy to answer your questions.

>> thank you, commissioner. before we begin with the questioning, i want to recognize how the chairman of the committee for a statement he wishes to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner kerlikowske, gil, good to see you again, thank you for being here to discuss your budget for cbp. i greatly enjoyed our association and working together in your earlier chapter of your life when you were director of the office of national drug control policy, the drug czar, and of course your experience back home. and the police, that wonderful city. in the drug czar role, you graciously took time away from your busy schedule to visit my appalachian district to learn more about our challenges facing prescription drug abuse.

so you bring a unique perspective i think to your job as -- at cbp. as the prescription drug epidemic has exploded onto the national scene. now giving way to heroin. controlling the influx of this dangerous drug and the violence it fuels in our border communities and elsewhere around the country is a top priority for you and for us. so i look forward to hearing about your efforts to reduce the supply of opioids in the country. over 60,000 employees. one of the largest law enforcement agencies. if not the largest. you're tasked with protecting the united states through a number of critical missions including preventing the illegal entry of terrorists, weapons,

narcotics from the air, sea and land. on a typical day, i'm told, cbp welcomes nearly 1 million visitors. screens more than 67,000 cargo containers. arrests more than 1,100 individuals and seizes nearly 6 tons of illegal drugs. that's a day's work. you're busy to say the least. before going into the merits of your budget request, i'd like to express my sincere gratitude to the men and women under your charge including yourself who serve our great nation. many of whom put themselves in harm's way on a daily basis to keep the homeland safe and secure. your fiscal '17 budget request, 13.9 billion, which constitutes

an increase of 687 million above the current level, i want to commend you on the improvement you've made to the visa security program, although i did have some concerns with the gaps that still remain. i also look forward to the expansion of the preclearance program which will push our borders further and further out. your appearance here today and our testimony on this issue reminds me of this subcommittee and 2003 when we ushered it into existence and i became the first chairman of this subcommittee and have followed fairly closely since the activities of the department. and it's a tough, tough job. mr. chairman. you're trying to meld together some 22 federal agencies. i think there's 16 different

unions. and like 20 different pay scales. so the work continues. and we've got our work to do as well. but you're on the front line. there's many positive things in your budget request. i'm disappointed with the efforts to ratchet down border security and our immigration laws. for example, the budget proposed a reduction of 300 border patrol agents, decreasing the statutory floor to 21,070. at a time when drug cartels from mexico and elsewhere are flooding our communities. urban and rural alike with heroin. we've never seen the like. and yet the budget proposes we cut back on the people fighting that surge and that scourge in our country. others in the administration

have rightfully labeled the abuse of opioids as a national epidemic. the director of disease control who says that overdose deaths, heroin and prescription pills, are taking more lives than car wrecks in the country. he calls it a national epidemic. and yet we hear from the administration well let's cut back on trying to fight it. well, don't be surprised if things are different when we get through with your budget in that regard. we lose 100 americans every day to addiction abuse. and yet you've proposed to reduce our first line of defense against the entry of these dangerous deadly drugs without the benefit of any supporting analysis that border patrols mission won't be compromised. as i mentioned, you've been in my direct. you've seen firsthand how these

drugs are destroying rural communities in appalachia. of course, you've been all over the country and you see the same. while you and i agree that reducing demand through education and treatment is critical, we mustn't lose sight of the fact enforcement remains a critical prong of our wholistic strategy on this scourge. stakes are high. we must do everything in our power to combat this scourge. i look forward to continuing to work with you to provide the resources that you need to do just that. another crisis being caused by the drug cartels is the massive influx of unaccompanied alien children and families at our southern border. we've seen a surge in drug cartel and gang violence across central and south america. fueled by the production and trafficking of drugs. these thugs and murderers are

wreaking havoc on millions of people. forcing many to flee to other countries including the u.s. recently, there's been an unprecedented spike in unaccompanied minors crossing our southern border. in the first four months of fiscal '16, border patrol has apprehended 20,000 unaccompanied alien children. that's double the number that were apprehended in the same time frame last year. unfortunately, this humanitarian crisis does not appear to be subsiding any time soon. the reality of which is reflected in your budget submission. you've requested resources to support a revised baseline of 75,000 unaccompanied child apprehensions as well as a contingency fund should that number be exceeded. our committee will analyze this request and my hope is we can

provide the necessary resources for cbp to handle the influx of these children at our borders. in addition, virtually half of the 5.2% increase in your budget request comes from the transfer of 305 million for the office of biometric identity management which, as you know, like fees, requires authorization from other committees. unfortunately, the president has sent us a budget, after budget, after budget, that requests large increases in funding and offsets them by using budget gimmicks like increasing taxes and fees that he knows are dead on arrival here on the hill. finally, i'd be remiss if i didn't mention president obama's executive order on immigration. as you know, this still remains one of the most divisive issues

in congress and in the country indeed at large. the president's unilateral action demonstrates he has no intention of working with congress or respecting our constitutional authority. unfortunately, you and your agency are caught in the middle of this fight. and it has made passing an annual appropriations bill for department of homeland security incredibly difficult. it also makes it impossible to move forward on any meaningful immigration reform while the president remains in office. so mr. commissioner, thank you for being here today. thank you for your service to your country. we thank you for leading this agency. >> thank you, mr. chairman. start off with the questioning here. i was talking to you, staffing is something you were concerned

about, i'm concerned about and i want us to discuss it. hiring. we'll talk first about the border patrol and afterwards about aviation hiring. i understand the border patrol is currently 1,268 agents below the mandated personnel floor of 21,370. a floor that's not new. it's been around for a while. so the under execution of agents is not due to hiring up to a new level as it is with the customs officers but sustaining the existing workforce. i'm going to have a series of questions. we'll pause for some of those, then we'll move on. what are you doing to address the exit of agents from the border patrol 1234 while we have been hiring cbp officers, we have consistently lost border patrol agents over the last

year. to ensure that stations are manned to the suggested and needed levels, do you foresee a need to reinstate a hardship designation for certain stations or create other incentives to help prevent the attrition of agents, with the reduction of overall numbers, do you anticipate and need to re-examine and restructure how the border patrol man stations and forward operating bases? >> i share very much the concern we've discussed on this hiring issue. and for the border patrol to be in a downward spiral, which means that we are not able to hire as fast as attrition is very concerning. i've talked with your staff also about the number of programs that we put in place particularly to speed up the process. so in these new hiring hubs, we can get people through in 160

days until at times well over a year. that's important. the close cooperation with the department of defense as people leave the department of defense and the active duty military to be able to hire them into the border patrol or into customs and border protection is particularly important. working with congress on additional pay for some of the very difficult locations that they work on hardship reimbursement would be particularly helpful. along with things that we've discussed around the age issues. when we talk about the border patrol, you know, we realize that their salaries were cut anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000. as a result of the auo, the additional overtime money. but we've now transitioned to the border patrol pay reform act. you should be very happenty to know that 96% of the border patrol agents who have now opted into the number of hours that they would

work have opted into the maximum number. so instead of a 40-hour workweek, they will work a 50-hour workweek for the additional money, which they are clearly deserving of. actually results in us getting more boots on the ground. >> the '17 requests calls for reduction of 300 in the overall strength of the border patrol. however, we understand that many stations along the southern border are facing staffing setbacks for a variety of reasons. there's no empirical data to inform how many agents we need. when cbp cannot articulate a validated requirement for the number border patrol agents combined with the technology requirements to surveil the border? when will we see validated requirements and resourcing models similar to the model used

by the office of field operations? >> i don't think there's anything that's more frustrating to the heads of the -- to the executives of the border patrol or myself or certainly the secretary on not being able to have a set of metrics that actually said how many border patrol agents do you actually need. it has been unbelievably difficult and complex and it's as complex as when we tried to decide how many police officers we needed in seattle versus how many police officers were needed in a city like washington, d.c. but we're closer. we're much closer now to developing that set of metrics that would be helpful. as you know, the offset in the reduction of the 300 personnel would be to fund radios, improvements in the radio system. the vast majority of which would go to the border patrol and to their vehicles. many of which now are reaching a life-span that makes them not as serviceable as they should be. there's nothing more frustrating than having an agent who can't

go out to do patrol because the radio is not operable or because the vehicle. so we're looking at using those funds for that. >> commissioner, while we have long discussed the hiring of customs officers and border patrol agents, i'm equally as concerned with the vacancy for interdiction agents. by your own numbers, cbp is 12% below the goal. 93 below the goal of 775 agents. how can we officially utilize if we don't have the pilots to fly the aircraft? it's my understanding corpus christi is only manned to fly two, maybe three missions at a time.

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

this huge increase in both domestic passenger travel and also international travel by air. so we're in a competitive environment. one of the difficulties has been, though, this requirement that a pilot coming out of the military must also undergo the same level of scrutiny or screening that someone hiring from outside will go through. quite frankly, they come with a top secret clearance if they're a pilot in the military. i don't see any reason why we can't continue to work with the office of personnel management and others to bring them on board much more quickly without going through as many hoops as we would go through for others. the last thing i mention is amongst all those different job descriptions in air and marine, we have i think four different pay scales, and we are interested in working toward the same law enforcement pay system that the fbi and the marshals and dea have. which is law enforcement

availability pay, leap pay, which provides an additional 25% of their salary for the extra hours that they would normally work. and we kind of like to level that playing field for all of them. so we'll continue to keep working on that. but of course i think you know too our push has been to hire with the appropriated money the additional customs and border protection officers, plus to stop the bleeding in the border patrol. >> commissioner, i would like to go back to the whole issue of border security and the fact that we don't have enough border patrol manpower there. we also hear a lot about the fact that, you know, we have to secure our border and when i go back home, i hear a lot anxiety about that because the impression is that our borders

are fairly open and that they're unprotected. in practical terms, how does cbp define its border security mission? and what are the measures by which we should be judging cbp's performance? >> we look very much, particularly with the border patrol, between the ports of entry. we look very much at the security that the border patrol -- do they have operational awareness or what we'd call situational awareness. do they know the number of people that may be attempting and the particular areas that they're coming across? they also have the information and the liaison with their state and city and county partners all along the border. we know many of those border cities from el paso to san diego to tucson have some of the lowest crime rates of any of the large cities in the country. so understanding and recognizing

that there are also places where we use our unmanned aircraft. there are also places that are so desolate and so rugged and so difficult that we're not seeing people attempt in any way, shape or form to cross or enter the border illegally. well, if they're not using those locations, we need to take those finite border patrol resources and allow them and put them into places where we do have greater numbers. but, you know, as a police chief, i was always held accountable for managing our people, responding quickly, making sure that we're trained and have the equipment they needed, but i was never held accountable for a crime-free city whether it was buffalo or seattle. there will always be gaps and we will work very hard to make sure those gaps are narrowed. >> i'd like to go now to an issue that we discussed during last year's hearing.

that's the treatment of unaccompanied mexican children who cross the border, which is different from those children that are coming from central america. last july, j.o. released a report on the treatment of unaccompanied children in dhs custody. we made a number of recommendations pertinent to mexican children. gao found that cbp personnel were not appropriately following the requirements of the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. cbp forms lacked specific indicators and questions agent officers should use to assess whether a child was -- has credible fear of returning to mexico, could be at risk of being trafficked if returned, or was capable of making an independent decision to voluntary return, voluntarily return. the report found that cbp personnel did not document the decisions they made relative to these factors.

goa found that cbp repatriated 95% of unaccompanied mexican children it apprehended between 2009 and 2014. including 93% of mexican children under the age of 14. even though cbp's 2009 memorandum on the treatment of unaccompanied children states that children under 14 are generally presumed to be unable to make an independent decision. i saw that the department recently signed new repatriation agreements with mexico. to what extent were those agreements in response to the gao report? and what specific changes to repatriations do they entail? >> as a result of the questions and discussion last year. also as a result of the gao, we did a new series of training for the border patrol to make sure those questions are appropriately asked and that the responses are appropriately recorded for that decision

involving mexican children. the same time, within the last month, assistant secretary bursen and director from i.c.e. were in i believe arizona to sign new repatriation agreements with mexico to make sure that there was close coordination with the government of mexico. so they wouldn't be returned at night. they wouldn't be returned in an environment that may be considered hostile or dangerous. and that their property, whatever property they cross the border with, would be also returned with them. so i think the progress and the training and progress in the additional repatriation agreement with mexico is helpful. as you know, the vast majority of the unaccompanied children that we are apprehending are coming from the three central american countries and really not mexico right now.

>> i see that my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman rogers. >> mr. commissioner, you and i have been working many times together over the years to curtail drug trafficking and abuse. i've said many times and i've heard you say it many times that there is no one answer to the problem. that it does take enforcement, treatment and education. holistic approach. the president's budget rightly puts prescription drug and heroin abuse in the forefront, but largely focuses on treatment and the demand side of the equation. if we want to see any further success in treating victims of abuse and educating the public about the danger that's present, i think we've got to be sure enforcement on the front end is emphasized and, in fact, ironclad.

your agency's charged with protecting the borders and you've got the primary role to play in all of this. dea says heroin seizures in the u.s. have increased in each of the last five years, nearly doubling from 2010 to 2014. your agency reports seizing over 9,600 ounces of heroin during fiscal year '14 and yet your budget would reduce the number of agents patrolling our borders by some 300. how can you justify taking boots off the ground in spite of this huge increase in heroin interest introduction?

>> mr. chairman, i go back to a couple things. one is on the heroin issue, the majority of any heroin that we seize is not between the ports of entry, it's smuggled through the ports of entry. whether it's in san ysidro or jfk airport, heroin seizures also predominantly are through a port of entry and carried in a vehicle or carried by an individual. we don't get much heroin seized by the border patrol coming through. i think just because there's a lot of risks to the smugglers and the difficulty of trying to smuggle it through. but when i look at -- when i look at the number of border patrol agents that we are already down and i look at offsetting, being able to provide additional radio equipment and additional vehicles as a result of using some of that money or the majority of that money to the border patrol, i think it's a decision that will help. we know that technology is better for their safety and it's also better to get them out to

be able to patrol. >> changing subjects. >> okay. >> the visa waver program permits citizens of 38 different countries to travel to the u.s. either for business or tourism purposes up to 90 days without a visa. in return, those 38 countries must permit u.s. citizens to remain in their countries for a similar length of time. since its inception in 1986, that program has evolved into a comprehensive security partnership with many of america's closest allies. the department administers the visa waiver program in consultation with the state department. they utilize a risk-based

multi-plmulti multi-layered approach to detect and prevent terrorists, serious criminals and other bad actors from traveling to this country. with the advent of the terrorist era that we're in now, the congress deemed it impossible to live with that kind of a free border program with 38 countries in the world for fear of terrorist infiltration undetected. so we passed the visa waiver program improvement and terrorist travel prevent act of 2015. which established new eligibility requirements for travel under the visa waiver program to include travel restrictions. they don't bar a person from coming to the u.s. point blank but they do require that the traveler obtain a u.s. visa which then gives us the chance

to investigate the background of the person. so in december, that law was passed. can you outline for us the program changes concerning aliens from these countries, how soon you'll be able to implement the changes if they're not already there? >> secretary johnson several months before the passage of this authorized additional series of questions to be put into the esta. this system in which we would record information with more detail and more specificity. for instance, more specificity when it comes to the location that a person would be staying. additional contact information such as cell phone and e-mail, those types of pieces, and then when the law was passed, particularly the fact of dual

citizenship with the four countries that were outlined, we canceled 17,000 travel approval requests that were already -- had already been basically approved. as you know, the esta system lasts. you can use it within a two-year window. one thing that isn't always recognized with this system, though, is that a person is continually vetted. those names are run against databases every 24 hours. so if you applied and you weren't going to travel for another nine months, every single day you name would be run series of database because we don't want you to suddenly say now i'm going to go ahead and use the esta. it's already been approached. i'm going to get on a plane. we say, well, wait, in the last 48 hours or 72 hours some information of a derogatory nature came up and needs to be worked on. we work closely with the department of state.

i testified recently of two hearings on this issue. i think the fact we were able to cancel the 17,000 visas or estas and require those individuals then go back to an embassy or a consulate and get a waiver, and we will continue including standing up at the national targeting center along with the state department personnel sitting right next to us, terrorist prevention group that will look at us much more in depth on a 24-hour basis. >> are you staffed to handle this workload? >> with personnel at the targeting center. i would think frankly if there's a real jewel in the crown and cbp when it comes to prevention i would say our national targeting centers for cargo and passenger anticipation of things that could be dangerous or

people that could be dangerous and i know a number of members and a number of staff have visited it and i would encourage them to visit to see that operation. as for additional people, including working in a counternetwork division to work on human smuggling and drug smuggling is a good prevention technique. >> the legislation also required program countries to validate passports, report lost or stolen passports, use screening and start passenger information exchange agreements. can you tell us what the requirements are and how they would be put in place? >> they must vest or check that foreign passport against interpol's lost or stolen passport database. they must do that. the requirement with visa waiver i think is not often talked

about but is really quite helpful is the fact that it will bring these countries who are like-minded who want to prevent terrorism and want to prevent smuggling. it brings us together in a better information sharing environment. we have in cbp a permanent liaison to interpol. we have two permanent liaisons to euro poll policing. and we have at our immigration assistance program a number of cbp personnel at airports where they don't do enforcement on foreign territory but work closely with their foreign counterparts. the benefit of frankly the visa waiver program brings us together to all assess risk and realize we're all in the same boat. >> the legislation directed you to terminate program countries for failure to comply with certain agreements. >> i'm not familiar with that.

i know secretary johnson in counsel with secretary kerry and also the director of the office of national intelligence just added three additional countries to that, to the original four that congress passed. and so that increases our workload, but it also improves our risk assessment and our safety and security. >> thank you, mr. commissioner, for your service. >> thank you. >> mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, commissioner, glad to see you here again. >> thanks. >> i want to pick up where the ranking member left off on the question of border security, how you conceive of that going forward in terms of the mix of elements that would go to make up the kind of situational awareness and border security you're talking about. i understand this is a mix of personnel infrastructure and

technology that we're talking about here. i share the concern that's been expressed repeatedly this morning about the short fall in personnel that this budget would apparently leave us with. something like 700 custom officials, 1,300 border patrol agents. my own view, i think it's widely shared, is in the long term, true and effective border security isn't going to be achieved, even with all the money we might throw at it, without comprehensive immigration reform. and since it's been brought up here this morning, i think maybe a little reality check is in order. the president, in fact, pushed very hard in cooperation with the congress for years for comprehensive immigration reform. he worked effectively at it and successfully with the senate.

the senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill. but then the house never took it up. that's the problem. and it was only after months, indeed years of that kind of stonewalling that the president did take executive action. it was limited action, it is very well reasoned and legally sound action, i believe. >> to exercise a degree of prosecutorial respect to those we initiate immigration enforcement on. then the republicans take that executive action as new excuse, a new excuse not to act. so frustratingly, we fall short, far short of the comprehensive immigration reform that might deal with this larger issue. so we return to border security.

and that, that issue, too, has become inflamed in recent months. thanks, largely to the presidential campaign. people with little or no immigration enforcement or policy experience, including some high-profile presidential candidates have said once again, we can simply build a fence. we can seal the southern border. and one actually says we can send the bill to mexico. now when i was chairman of this committee, the fence loomed very large. and we appropriated on this subcommittee for hundreds of miles of pedestrian and vehicle fence. we attempted with mixed success, i have to say. to exercise some measure of

cost/benefit analysis with these various segments of the fence. but we built it there was a huge political push on at the time to build that fence. now the fence is back. and i'm going to give you a chance to comment explicitly on this. what does a secure border look like? and do we need more fence? >> it does mean that when we have that situational or operational awareness and we know what's coming and where our gaps are, the fence that's been built is 600 miles of different fencing, including tactical fencing, very high fencing. double and triple fencing in some locations and some to prevent a vehicle. the border patrol uses that type of technique and those types of fence technologies in order to move people that may be attempting to come across, into different locations where they can have more resources. we also you know, clearly recognize that anyone who has traveled and spent time on the

border, as i think every one of the members here has, that there are lots of locations in which fencing and walls would, would not be able to be built. would not work and would not be able to withstand, and even with the fencing that we have, we spend considerable resources repairing and keeping that fencing in line. so you know, we think it's the combination of all of the other things that we do, tactical aerostats, patrols, infrared, fixed towers, ground sensors, on and on. that make for a more secure border. >> would it be your judgment that the budget you submitted gets that balance right? in terms of the mix of elements going forward? are there major gaps, major omissions that you would look to be addressed in later years? >> i think the budget that we submitted is a very realistic budget.

i think that i would be very happy as i'm sure every member of the committee would be, if we could hire and get the number of border patrol agents and customs and border protection officers fully trained and on the job. that right now, that is, that is the number one priority, because regardless of all the technology, this is still a very labor-intensive and people-oriented kind of business, whether it's at a port of entry or between the ports of entry. but i think we've submitted a realistic budget that will help us get there. and quite frankly, the committee has been very supportive of a number of initiatives in the past. and i think that's why we've made progress. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. stewart? >> thank you, mr. chairman, commissioner, thank you for many years of service. and to your peers as well. law enforcement, all around the

country, it's a difficult time to be in law enforcement. and to want you to know that many of us support you and the efforts you're trying to undertake. i'm going to ask you a couple questions. i'd kind of like to explore, do we know what we don't know? do we have a good feel for some of these things, for example i want to follow up on the chairman's conversation about the visa waiver program. you've indicated something like 17,000 who have been denied or revoked to date on the esta program. do we have any idea of those 17,000? is that 90% of those who we maybe should have identified? is it 50%? do you have a sense of how successful that is? >> the 17,000 are the dual citizens with the four countries. >> that's very easy to identify. >> i would tell you that looking, it is a mix of people, is there somebody in that mix that probably might not have or should not have gotten that?

i think that's very possible. but also, it's people who fled iran during the overthrow of the shah in 1979, that have been, haven't been to iran in 40 years, and but still have dual citizenship. and they were canceled. so you know, it was a broad brush, widely supported by congress and the president. >> that's a relatively easy thing to do. identify those who have the dual citizenship of those targeted countries. i'm guessing you identified most of those people. wouldn't you say? >> we identified them through the fact that they already, we knew in the system that they were dual citizens. >> much harder to identify those, that the visa waiver legislation required us to identify. those who had traveled to some of these countries in question.

do you have a sense for how successful we've been in identifying those people? and let me elaborate and then i'll allow you to answer. they may be traveling from europe. that we would be unaware of that travel, were it not for our european partners or counterparts that have made us aware of that. and the homeland director was firm on several countries, france, belgium, germany, italy, greece, gave them a february 1 deadline to fix what he called crucial loopholes. can you give us an update in how our partners are doing in providing us this information? we would be unaware of it without their input. they hadn't gotten a good job of giving us that information? >> visa waiver results in a lot of partnerships that including the exchange of information. so one, the relationship particularly after the attacks in paris, continues to get strengthened about the necessity

of exchanging and sharing information. you are exactly correct when you talk about how difficult it is to detect people because of broken travel. we rely on another partner in another government to perhaps tell us about that. also, people do self-declare. about having travelled to one of the countries. and then lastly, when you enter the united states and the passport is gone by through the customs and border protection officers, just as we did during the ebola screening, we do come across people that have traveled to one of those countries. i think 2011 was the cutoff date that you put in place. >> commissioner, being short on time, let me ask you, the department of homeland security gave the partner as february 1 deadline to close the loopholes, would you say they've done that effectively?

>> i would say they're much better. but i couldn't answer for every one of them and i'd be happy to provide that information to you and your staff. >> i wish you would. some of them are more effective than others. let me ask very quickly, one of the things we identified and one of the things that many of us recognized that we had to expand our capabilities and that was to use social media to those who may be entering our country and pose a threat. san bernardino there were indications and i'm not talking about radicalization. i'm talking about those who are radicalized, trying to enter a country. if we use social media as a tool, we would raise red flags and say this person, is someone we should look more closely. but previous to that, we hadn't done a good job. i don't think it was a policy to use that tool. can you update, how is that being implemented to use social media to identify those individuals who may be a threat as they're trying to enter the country. >> sure. the social media checks would

apply through dhs, to i.c.e., et cetera. and secretary johnson has stood up a task force within dhs to look at expanding and moving forward on the ability to research and use information and social media. that applies to dhs-wide, not gist just for cbp. >> do you know when that task force is supposed to give their report? >> i believe general taylor from intelligence and analysis is in charge as the chair of that task force. i don't know the date. >> we'll find out and follow up with that thank yo. thank you thank yothank you. >> mr. quayle? >> mr. chairman. >> i believe you said earlier this might be your last hearing, i want to say thank you so much for all your many years of service. i appreciate it. and also appreciate your moderate approach to this.

i'm from the border. laredo is 96%, most hispanic city percentage wise in the country. i think people know my policies. i like to see a moderate approach. we don't want to see open borders. we believe that if somebody has been put in detention, they ought to be treated fairly. we should have detention, have some sort of deterrent. alt at the same time, we think that the immigration reform, sensible immigration reform, we think the wall is a 14th century solution touh a 21st century problem that we have. we would like to see moderation. because we'd like to see order at the border. don't want to get political, but the folks that i represent on the border, wouldn't give me 95, 90% of the vote every time i run, i assume they support my policies. which is pretty much what you do also, a moderate approach. one of the things we've talked about lately is to extend our border beyond the u.s. mexico border.

a couple of years ago, we, i think we put about 80, $85 million to secure the mexican border with guatemala. i saw some figures that over a period of time, they deported more people than border patrol did over the same amount of time. so just $80 million did a lot to help mexico extend our border. we were in costa rica, the cuban, a totally different issue. the costa ricans were telling us in december that the people who are coming in trying to get into the u.s. they had people from ghana, somalia, nepal, and literally name the country, and they were there. my question to you in extending the border out besides the u.s. mexico border.

what else can we do to help the mexicans and our central american folks to help us secure our border? the more we stop outside the u.s. border, the better it is for us. so if you want to address biometric equipment. training, we can do that. i know you're doing that. what can we do to step this up? >> congressman, i think the government of mexico has done a really admirable job, particularly in the last year plus on increasing and improving their border. cvp and other components of dhs have a number of advisers and technical assistants both in places like tapachula and other locations, but also within mexico city. we visited the training center for those personnel. we visited the detention facility. i visited it particularly. they have made marked progress in, in, in the work that they've done. and i think we couldn't be more pleased with the government of mexico as a partner in this. so we'll continue to look at can we assist in biometric identification process, other types of things. but i think the last thing and

probably the most important in all of this, would be that if those three central american countries, honduras and el salvador and guatemala had better safety, better security, a better educational system for people, and better hope for the people that live in those countries, they wouldn't be fleeing and making an incredibly dangerous journey to the united states. as mr. allen as i sat on the floor with a father and his 4-year-old daughter not that long ago. he said you know we had several murders down the street. he said the last thing i need to do is to leave my wife with one of our other children and for myself and my daughter to flee. this is in el salvador to flee

and try to get to the united states where his mother, where his mother lives. but he said, i can't, i can't raise her in that environment. if those countries are more stable, i think people don't want to pick up and leave and come here. >> well, i hope you work with the state department, because as you know, mr. chairman, and members of the committee, we added $750 million working with kay ranger, for the central america, the northern triangles, hopefully you're all a part of that process. the more we extend our security out instead of playing defense on the one-yard line, but extend it to the 20 yard line, the better it is. so there was $750 million that hopefully all-will work with the state department, thank you so much for your time and effort. >> it would be helpful to have an ambassador, too, in mexico. >> i think roberto jacobsen should be the ambassador, it's unfair that she's been delayed for something -- roberta jacobsen. she's been delayed for something, that's unrelated.

>> thanks for your service. >> i'm going to follow up with what the chairman of the full committee asked about a little bit. which is the role of your organization now, in controlling drug traffic. i think there was testimony last year. that. your department doesn't have a zero tolerance policy. people found crossing the border with marijuana, or other drugs, actually, there's no zero tolerance, you don't refer for prosecution everyone, who poisons our youth. i've got to ask you, why? >> i don't know of any policy like that i know that people are apprehended with drugs, whether it's small amounts that they're carrying for some personal use or whether it is multi-ton or

multi-kilo loads. all of those to my knowledge would be referred to the united states attorney and it would not be up to customs and border protection to make a decision for the department of justice as to whether or not prosecution would be accepted. and frankly, if i did find out that we did have a policy where we were making those decisions. rather than where they belong with the department of justice, i would reverse that policy very quickly. >> you were head of the office of national drug control policy. would you be disappointed with the department of justice, if in fact they had set minimum amounts of marijuana to be brought into this country before they would be prosecuted? >> i would tell you that -- >> it seem like it would be a waste of time for your agents, your agents go, track them down, find the drugs, they think they did a great job and turn it over to the doj, and the doj looks the other way. and says we're too busy. >> i would tell you, i

understand depending on the united states attorneys' offices along the border from texas to california, that the number one client for prosecutions is customs and border protection. we keep them busy with everything possible. i think they're clearly going to be cases that they are not going to, and these are questions that are answered by them. i think they're clearly cases that given the finite resources that they have, they're not going to be able to accept for prosecution either because of prosecutorial merit. or because they've set some guideline. but i would tell thaw we make those referrals all the time. and we're happy to make sure they have everything. i've assigned attorneys in our office to be cross-designated as assistant united states

attorneys just to help out in those areas so they can have additional prosecutors and if we need to assign more attorneys to do that, to help them out, then that's what we'll have to do. >> thank you very much. >> i was a little disappointed, back in 2009 i guess, you know the administration decided and i think you agreed, to stop using the term -- war on drugs. and honestly, i think if you look at the heroin epidemic we have now, it's exactly the result of the leadership of the country, saying that we no longer have a war on drugs. just my personal opinion. rhetorical question. let me go onto the visa waiver program. i just have a question about this. because as you know, part of the controversy is this decision was made to on on a case-by-case basis, permit waivers for people

from business people from iraq or iran who are conducting business, i believe those are the two case-by-case. can you tell us since that program was put in place, how many, since it was case by case -- who makes those case-by-case decisions? >> the process, if there was a question, and to my knowledge, there's not even a pending request for anyone to use that example. but we would use the unit or the group that we stood up in the national targeting center to review those. they're a series of questions that a person would have to answer if in fact for example it was a business case. we know there that there are waivers already in existence, general waivers in the law for government officials and for military. but there would be a whole series of questions. and we would have to validate through that system. but right now. there's not a single pending request or even one that's been made. >> iran's objection seems to be much ado about nothing? >> i don't know if it's merely too early in the process for some of these additional requests. but i do know that no request

has been made. >> one final point and it would be pretty brief. it has to do with the integrated fixed towers contracts. these were supposed to be important parts of our first line of defense and yet the first tower you know was, the certification was delayed. now there's no, is there money in the budgetses for the rest of these towers? are they going to proceed on time? >> there is money and they are proceeding on time. the border patrol was required under the contract, and rightly so, to certify that these expensive pieces of technology are actually operational and are helpful. and i think as many members of the committee know, the attempt to build a virtual wall resulted

in pretty significant vestments of taxpayer dollars in some technology that did not prove to be useful to the agents on the ground that actually needed it as i understand it the border patrol has certified that the integrated fixed tower is a useful, helpful tool that expands their visibility on the border. >> thank you very much. yield back. >> doctor, as you'll recall, i mentioned the a pretty strong rumor on the texas border of the 200-pound rule on marijuana. i didn't get a response from the attorney general, i asked her about that. mr. young? commissioner, welcome. nice to see you, thanks for what you do. i want to talk about a little about custom and border protection uses of unmanned aerial systems. i had gone down to the border last year, early last year and noticed things, uavs and aerostats, can you talk a little bit about where those are being used, how they're being used, and where they're being used. are you seeing a drop in border activity? because it seems to me like many

times this can simply be a real deterrent by seeing these intimidating blimps or drones up in the sky. and can you just reassure us or talk about the relationship between using the uass and in conjunction with your agents. and is one meant to supplement the other? you're not phasing out agents with the use of uass are you? can you talk a little bit about this? >> they're all designed to enhance and even in my earlier statement. the fact that it's still a labor intensive job. it still requires boots on the ground but it can be greatly enhanced with technology. so i think the tactical or the tethered aerostats are particularly helpful. with the camera systems that are in them. >> do you know about how many aerostats we are at now? >> i think we're at five and we put another one in mcallen area, so we're now moving to six aero clzstats.

they are fairly expensive to operate baecause we use contractors to operate them. but frankly, i don't want to take a border patrol agent off the road. and then have them operate the mechanics of the tactical aerostat. so i think they are helpful. i'll be down in mcallen next week for my 12th or 13th trip. and the agents down there feel that they're a definite deterrent and visible. i kind of thought that even if we had some extras without the equipment we ought to just put them up in the air. and see how that works. kind of like when we park a police car with nobody in it. and see if people slow down. >> or the inflatable tanks they used in world war ii. >> on the road. but we'll have to see if they take up my idea. >> thank you for that. >> last year, i asked you about guidance given to cpv personnel to keep administration's policies in mind and if these priorities supersede the law. last month the house judiciary committee, her testimony from a

cpb agent that undocumented immigrants are no longer given a notice to appear order and are released without any means of tracking their whereabouts. are you know, i have serious concerns about this. i know some of my colleagues do as well. are agents being directed to ignore the law? or is this coming from within their own decision-making? or are they given guidance on ignoring the law on this? >> they shouldn't be releasing anyone and the border patrol shouldn't be issuing the notices to appear without going through and without having i.c.e., immigrations and customs enforcement. we don't need to be in that i think everyone is very familiar with policies in the past. called catch and release. in which people were not documented. reports were not as well written. people weren't questioned. there's no one that's apprehended today that isn't, unless they're under the age of 14, that isn't fingerprinted and

photographed, that isn't debriefed about how did you get here. was there a smuggler involved? who did you pay? how much did it cost? all of that information. but we don't need and don't want an i would not stand by if the border patrol was releasing people without going through all of the formalities that are required. >> did this concern you when this border patrol agent gave this testimony before the judiciary committee about this? >> the concern i have is quite often the border patrol council, which is the union, is probably not the most knowledgeable organization about what's actually going on. i think unlike, you know, when i had police officers in seattle, they would follow the law. then there's room within the law to actually do things. and if they weren't happy with doing that, it's kind of like well, if you really don't want to follow the directions that your superiors, including the president of the united states

and the commissioner of customs and border protection, then you really do need to look for another job. >> there's some serious concerns out there that the law is not being enforced. last year when saldana was here, she gave a statement saying their goals and principles and priorities should take precedence even over the law. so that's very concerning to myself and many others. on this panel. and just throughout america. wondering why if it's not happening, the law is not being enforced. it's a very serious thing. i urge you to keep an eye on that, please. thanks. >> thank you. >> all right. i think we'll start a second round. first, going back to something one of my colleagues brought up. i think mr. harris, the integrated fixed towers, the reality is that the first certification of one of these

towers, was last friday. isn't that correct? so it's a very, very current event. >> yes. >> and on those towers, here's the question, the texans would like to know. when will your budget install towers in texas? what will you use in texas, if not the integrated fixed towers? >> so i think that part of the delay with the integrated fixed towers was the fact that the contract was protested. and as we know, when a contract is protested, it take as long time then to overcome that but that fixed tower in arizona is up and working and we know the additional aerostat in texas is very helpful and if there are other locations, including those within texas with which the fixed tower would make a difference, i would like to move forward with that. i couldn't be more specific but i'm happy to get back to you on

that. >> it's not it wouldn't be the first time that we've looked around and seen resources going to arizona that we really needed in texas. so i think i'm required to ask that question. >> i got the message. >> okay. >> we understand that the department is exploring an outcome-based approach to metrics that would measure the effectiveness or of our border security. how is cpb working with the secretary on this initiative and how will it change the current cpb metrics which are more input-based instead of outcome-based. what does the preliminary data suggest for border security between and at points of entries? i understand reports different compare with existing metrics. >> the secretary and i think everyone including cpb and the border patrol is frustrated with either the lack of metrics or the metrics that exist, what do

they really tell you. i believe dr. aris said -- you don't know what you don't know, would be one of the questions. so the secretary brought in a number of people from the department of defense and others that have been working pretty closely with all of us to gather as much information as possible. about what are the measures and what should be looked at and what are the determinations that would be most useful in things like determining the number of border patrol agents, how secure is the border, what are we missing, et cetera. it's very complex. i don't know the exact timeline, but i know that he is absolutely focused and intent on trying to have this done and out, certainly before he leaves office. >> so you already know don't really know anything, the difference between, you know, input and outcome basis? do you have some examples as to

what the differences might be? >> i don't. the last bringing i had from the people that had come over from defense, was probably three or four months ago. so i'm not all that familiar with where they are now. they wanted to gather a lot of information from i.c.e., not just border patrol. but also, at our ports of entry. so -- >> have you got anything that gives us a hint? would you share it with us? >> i'll be happy to. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we look back on the record of the last hearing last year, i do not believe that saldana said or implied that the law should not be followed. commissioner, late last year, you briefed me on the results of cameras, which this committee submitted as a way of increasing the accountability of cvp personnel, as well as protecting them from unfounded accusations

of misconduct. the budget request includes $5 million to examine how body cameras might be used across cvp's varied operational environments looking at the expanded efficient use of other camera technologies could be beneficial. can you elaborate on how this funding will be used? and how that activity will be different from the feasibility study that cvp conducted last year? >> yes, sir. we've tried to move beyond. the fact that one customs and border protection is a very camera-rich environment now. every port of entry, certain checkpoints, lots of locations, including all the cameras along the border. so we have lots of cameras and we use a lot of cameras. expanding the cameras in two areas would be particularly helpful. one is that our marked vehicles, do not have dash cameras as many police departments have. like los angeles and others.

we want to be able to use part of that $5 million to put those cameras in those vehicles, we do end up in apprehensions and pursuits, et cetera, where that record would be helpful. expanding cameras at the checkpoints, the permanent checkpoints, the number would be helpful. and also on our boats, we've had two fatal incidents, one off the coast of california and one with british virgin islands, within the last year, of fatalities involving enforcement actions. our boats are not equipped with those cameras. the difficulty we've had with body-worn cameras for in our air and marine agents will be testing them out as they interact with people. at locations. the difficulty with the body-worn cameras for our border patrol agents, we did not find a cam a ra that camera that

withstood the environment that they worked in for more than about three months. we've had a number of discussions with vendors who have come forward with either ideas or ways to improve those cameras, because we think it would be helpful. i spent time over coffee with a number of the agents who field-tested the cameras. they were very positive about it. the border patrol council, the union in this particular case, has indicated support for body-worn cameras. >> how long do you anticipate the next phase will take and when can we anticipate that cvp will make a decision about improving and expanding use of cameras, including the body-worn cameras? >> it's a relatively easy to improve an expand on the cameras. and all of the locations i talked about. except for the agents out in the field and the rough terrain. i would certainly make a goal of mine before i leave office at the end of the year.

to make sure that we've developed body-worn cameras that agents can wear and rely upon. >> what progress has been made in addressing the major procedural and policy challenges associated with using the cameras? >> i think the most help that we've gotten has been from the nongovernmental organizations who are very involved in body-worn camera issues for state and local law enforcement. they have been a part of the discussion and over what would be the best policies. but we also know and i think the city of los angeles looked at a pricetag just for that city alone of over $50 million and wants to make sure -- and i think you brought this up, too, mr. chairman. there are huge numbers of costs when it comes to retaining information, foia questions, et cetera, and all of that needs to

be included in the analysis. >> when you arrived at cvp, i and many others had significant concerns about allegations of the improper use and misconduct among cvp personnel. a short time later in 2014, you updated cvp's use of force handbook, incorporating many of the representations made by the inspector general and the police review of cvp, use of force cases and policies. you also announced the establishment of a use of force center of excellence. the budget request for fy 17 include as $4.2 million increase for the center. which is based on cvp's advanced training center in harper's ferry. can you elaborate on the purpose of the center, what it has accomplished to date and how the proposed budget increase would be used? >> the center has been helpful in two areas. one is less lethal technology.

there are a variety of less lethal from tasers to pepper ball launchers and on and on. they can be used before having to resort to the use of a firearm. so part of the work that they do is the training and looking at the new equipment. the other is the simulators. so we're in the process of purchasing 21 simulators that will be assigned throughout our field of operations from spokane, washington, to florida, where agents and officers can go through a simulation. we make our own videos, based upon the environment, particularly that the border works . at the same time, we added a s . variety of fence together with the border patrol training facility in new mexico so that agents can practice before they

ever leave training, they can practice in the environment that they are going to be operating in. we've seen great progress and we'd like to make more. >> have you seen the use of force instance decreased over the past year? >> our assaults on agents so far year to date in this fiscal year are down about, i believe, 25 to 30%. so assaults on agents are down. we released our use of force information and our uses of force were even though last year we did see a flattening or the same number of assaults on agents, we saw a reduction in the use of force by agents. and part of that is a result of better policy, better training, better equipment, et cetera. >> question. as you well know, it is critical for cvp officers to be able to transfer information they gathered for national security purposes. concerned about some findings issued by the homeland security committee that while cvp officers can pass along

information collected at borders, the process isn't automaticed and it isn't -- isn't automated and isn't incorporated into the federal government's databases. i see you're requesting $48 million for the office of intelligence staffing. i want to be sure, i know everybody does, that maybe you can talk a little more about the intent sbeg grags and clab of systems and technologies to address this. >> when i arrived at cvp and examined each of the components, including the office of intelligence, i saw that the office of intelligence was very much tactical and very much focused on particular targeting. but that means that, as i described it, it was kind of an inch a mile wide and an inch deep. no. vice versa. it was very much targeted or very much tactical. so it was very important that we brought in a new assistant commissioner who came from the office of director of national

intelligence and the fbi and said let's broaden our intelligence scope and work more closely with the other intelligence agencies and feed the information to our targeting center. we needed all of the other information. for instance, we're negotiating on preclearance with nine other countries. we need that broad-based intelligence. that's where we are. that's where we're headed. and the relationship with the intelligence community to be able to access other databases is progressing well. >> it's progressing well. >> it is. >> do you foresee any impediments that you're facing that we can help with? >> no, we couldn't have -- you can always help but we couldn't have better partners than director clapper and comey. i think they see the value of

what cvp brings to the table on these issues. >> thank you for that. mr. price? >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, i'd like to ask you about two distinct but related areas to push our borders outward. the first is cargo screening overseas. the second, preclearance for airline passengers. first, on the cargo screening, as you know, the 9/11 act required cvp to scan 100% of maritime cargo originating in ports prior to landing on american shores. for a variety of reasons, from costs to technological restraints and inadequate harbors, this requirement remains elusive and perhaps it's not ultimately possible. i think this committee has recognized that. in fact, in our 2016 report, we

acknowledged as much. we acknowledged the expectation that the department in light of this would provide to the congress an aggressive alternative requirements that relied on the abilities achieved to date. i'm quoting. so we directed to provide a briefing within 45 days of enactment for the improvement of maritime scanning at foreign ports. not so much a question as a comment. i do think that you have a case to make here. there may be elements that you need to develop earlier. we had a report on this from your agency which was very brief and not totally adequate. so there is a history here. i hope you will take this briefing very seriously.

i think this subcommittee needs to be assured that in light of this very difficult perhaps impossible statutory requirement that you are filling in the blanks with a risk-based screening program that we can rely on longer term. we put great stock in your filling out that information. >> we do. the secretary has made it very clear the importance of this. we have a lot of screenings in place, both overseas and here. but it does not meet the requirement of the law. and that's important. and also, of course, the direction through the law of bio metric exit and that's why we've moved very aggressively since we were given the mandate in 2013 to move to a biometric exit process. we have a biographic exit program which is pretty robust but we need biometric exit and i think part of this budget is the

request that the office of biometric information be moved to cvp so that if you're going to hold me or the next commissioner accountable for biometric exit, we would have the tools and resources to actually make that happen. >> but my reference is to this prior statutory requirement for screening overseas and this committee on a bipartisan has been aware of the short and long-term plans look like for the screening of particularly risky cargo coming from overseas. now, preclearance, airline passengers. this has been in some instances a very controversial process involving canada, ireland. in the case of abu dhabi, not so

controversial. in terms of convenience to passengers and the cases are pretty strong but we do need to make the case and understand how the department assesses the work done so far and what kind of projections you make into the future. so i wonder here, you may want to submit more for the record but i wonder if you could briefly give us an assessment. how many places is this going on and what do you think would be desirable in terms of the future reach of this preclearance effort. what kind of a progress report can you give? >> so the discussion with ten airports in nine countries is continuing on. it's very robust. tonight i'll be meeting in new york with a group from a country of seven people flying in from another country to discuss final discussions. i believe that before the end of this calendar year, we'll have several signed agreements with countries for preclearance and

then i believe in 2017, preclearance operations will actually be operational in a couple of those locations. for safety, security, benefit to the traveler, for costs to the taxpayer, i don't think with -- and certainly with the support that congress has given on this, i don't think that we can go wrong with pushing our borders out. >> abu dhabi in particular, do you have any comments on how that has worked and particularly on the security for that arrangement? >> well over 1,000 people who wanted to fly from abu dhabi to the united states, our recommendation to the airline was that if they arrive, they would be deemed inadmissible and the airline then made a decision not to admit them. and that doesn't mean just citizens from uae but that's people that have flown through abu dhabi, to then continue on travel. so from a security standpoint, i

think it made sense but i'm very cle pleased that in the current negotiations, all of these locations have american fly carriers that fly into and out of them. >> that's the requirement going forward? >> yes. >> it was not true of abu dhabi at the time. >> right. that seems remarkable, just on the face of it, 1,000, you say? >> yes. >> do you think those thousands of people otherwise would have come to this country and be dealt with at one of our ports of entry or is there something attracting these people to maybe try their luck? >> we apprehend and deny admissibility every single day and they would have landed in the united states. they would have been deemed inadmissible based upon the information we had. they would have -- the airline would have been required to place them on the next flight back -- the next return back.

they would have been held during that -- they would have been incarcerated during that period or maintained in a secure location until getting back on that flight where we escorted them back on the plane and they left the united states. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> dr. harris? >> thank you very much. let me ask you about the oig report on the forward operating basis which i'm sure you've seen and i understand and they say that your organization responded but it seems it's pretty serious because this is a pretty important operating basis. are you committed to addressing all of the problems they found? >> the first problems and the ones that were certainly most significant involved the quality of the water and we made changes. one of the difficulties with an organization this vast and this widely dispersed is sometimes by

the time the information gets to me is what is being done and how many days has this already gone. i've made it clear that the safety and security of our personnel, whether it's where they work is key to that so these forward operating basis, which can be quite helpful and remote, need to be secure and need to be maintained and we need to work with our staff and gsa to make sure that these locations are better. >> okay. thank you. i appreciate that. you're right. our agents do indeed need to have secure facilities and good facilities where they are, working. with regard to export enforcement, i just have a question, obviously the sanctions that prohibit u.s. exports to iran with the exception of civilian aircraft, what steps are you doing now that there is this enhanced relationship with iran to

monitor for illegal exports, to make sure that we're not exporting illegally to iran? >> you know, exports, including ours did not see the same level of scrutiny and review that certainly imports. over the last couple of years we've taken a number of steps to do a much better job to look at what is leaving. there is a program in which large numbers of exports from well-known manufacturers here in the united states may leave the country and that the manifest of what was leaving the country would not be transmitted until it was already on a ship and already going out. so we're working with industry because we want the manifest in advance before it ever gets on a boat or ever gets the ability to leave and we need to make sure that we're working closely with the intelligence community and others on things that may be exported to a country that could

be hostile to us that they never get to that country. >> and one final question, i'm just not sure this is, you know, your jurisdiction but the homeland security sector is supposed to deny anyone studying for nuclear science or nuclear engineering. makes great sense. we don't need to train our enemies. the law is to remain in effect for the next eight years. my concern is, i have five children, four have been to college and changed their major during college. do we have a safeguard to make sure that iranians don't come here and literally gain access to what i believe is the best education in the world to go back and build weapons against us? how do we safeguard against that?

>> dr. harris, it isn't in my -- >> it's probably i.c.e., isn't it? >> or uicis. we could get with your staff. >> i would appreciate that. that's of some concern to me. because people can come here and we don't know their intentions. they'll say they want to be a history major and end up in an engineering school and learn things that come back to bite us. thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, thank you so much. two questions. where are we with the officers? at one time we were delayed because of security background. where are we with that and tell us a little bit about the agricultural staffing issue and

tell us where you are on those two issues. >> sure. one, i also would be remiss if i didn't thank you to speaking with our personnel whenever they have their large personnel meetings and talking about professionalism and on and on. it mean as great deal when members of congress spend time with them so that's very helpful. we're about 700 customs and border protection agents below what the 2,000 that we would have hired. remember, we've had a lot of attrition. in december, we hit the highest number ever of customs and border protection agents on board. so we're making progress with them. that's particularly helpful. we also did not ever have a staffing program or a workload analysis for our agricultural specialist. and quite frankly, after 2003 and the fact that we were put together as a result of that combining in the department of

homeland security, it was all security all the time and our agricultural specialists who are the most highly educated by the way of our workforce did not receive, in my estimation, as much support as needed and when you think about the things that could harm this country, from pests and diseases and agriculture, we've worked pretty hard to try and improve and increase and show the recognition for the important work that they do. but the staffing model will be helpful. >> okay. the sect question has to do wita letter that governor abbott and myself wrote to the secretary. and i see the response and i told the secretary i respectfully disagree. especially, i think the chairman said a while ago that y'all are 12% below the goal for air intradiction officers, is that

correct?? >> yes. >> so if there's air crew vacancies and we provided funding, full funding to the national guard -- and again i disagree with the way the secretary had looked at -- he does a great job and i appreciate it. he was looking at it one month in january to -- december to january. when you lack at the longer one, it's actually 171% increase on kids, 102% on families. regardless of all of that, if we're short, we have vacancies. the national guard got funded. i would ask y'all, with all due respect to the letter i got from the secretary. i would ask y'all to lock at that again one more time. because mr. chairman, i am going to request some language, especially if we fund it that we put that back again. especially if your numbers are correct and they've been

confirmed that 12% under the goal. and all we want to do is provide the men and women the support, the air support. i can understand we didn't provide the funding, blame congress. but in this case we did provide the funding. i would ask you to respectfully consider or request again. >> sure. and we would never blame congress. >> and again my last question again, thank you for all. i wish you the best for the end of this year. i really appreciate your dedication and the men and women that serve along with you. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner, i too want to join my friend from texas in thanking you for your hard work. please convey our appreciation and thanks to all of the members of the u.s. customs and border protection agency. they do a tough job in a tough environment. and as we talk and question, we all know, was all of us have

been there. and those that haven't are going to go. they need to know the kind of rough environment that y'all have to work in. and we hope god blesses each and every one of you. thank you. >> thank you. >> we're adjourned.

wednesday a hearing on the bioethics of fetal tissue research with members of the house committee special investigative panel. live conch at 10:00 a.m. eastern. in the afternoon the joint economic committee hears from white house committee of economic advisers chair on the current state of the economy. that's live at 2:30 p.m. eastern.

c-span needs your vote. we selected the top five student videos and now you get to select the fan favorite. this week watch the top five student videos and cast your vote online at studentcam.corst. the fan favorite winner will be announced on march 9th, live on c-span. ♪ interior secretary sally jewell testified before the house natural resources committee on the president's 2017 budget request. she took questions on her department's plan to proposal to repeal oil sharing a lotted to gulf states.

this is just over three hours. we're going to get started. this hearing come to order. we're examining the department of interior spending priorities in the fiscal year 2017 budget. any oral opening statements are limited to the chair, the ranking minority member, the chair and a designee of the ranking minority leader. therefore i ask unanimous consent that any other members opening statements if they wish to have some be included as a part of the hearing record. if you submit nem to the clerk by 5:00 p.m. today eastern time or the close of this hearing within whichever comes first. so without objections it will be so ordered. i also am going to ask for unanimous consent that greg wall don be allowed to participate in today's hearings.

seeing no objection it will be so ordered. as we begin this process i sarcastically said the other day that the only thing positive about this budget is it's the last one we're going to see. that is both sarcastic and oversimplification but unfortunately terribly accurate. with a $19 trillion deficit, this is a $20 billion budget that is basically the same old. it rewards friends, punishes enemies, listen to some, ignores e e 0s. the people that ed need on the cared for or served are not going to be heard in this particular budget. it omits tens of millions of dollars that are going to be use for frivolous lawsuits. these lawsuits together with 200 regulations it issued last year stifle economic development but the benefits of the land, the wildlife, the air, the water resources or the people who live in that area or the people who

come to reck rate in those particular areas. the rule like the hydrolic fracturing rule, the rules that redistrict millions from gulf offshore resources toward a flawed climate action plan, withdrawal of 10 million acres for a habitat that is doing poorly on federal land but great on private land because they know what to do. and a i am also perplexed by the department's double standard for stringently enforcing esa consultation apparently on the epa's claimed power plan rule or when the epa dumps millions of cramp into the river, that's an oops. we'll whitewash the entire thing. last week this committee received subpoenaed documents from the army corps, a partial response from the interior department. the staff will be reviewing

those and will be following up awaiting your response. we have a $19 billion backlog that's facing this department yet we want to add more lines. we are undercutting future grazing on federal lands with the sizable increase to grazing fees that in addition to a 25% increase that occurred last year. and rather that informing congress of the ranchest grazing increase in years, they chose to leak tight an join line news agency. i learned of it when a reporter asked me a question about it. the esa regulations, we have a department budget that does nothing to address the west drought problems when we could be putting 200,000 acres of land into agricultural productions, instead we're diverting more more water. you have a program in there that deals with drought mitigation. those of us in the republican basin are going to get $3.5

million of that, the other 62 we do not. the drought hits all of the west. it's not a blue or red state drought but you wouldn't be able to recognize it by this budget. we deal with the plan that by law had to have consultation and coordination with local government and yet the city has not been consulted. when the county made calls, they were never returned. but a special interest group panelist that happened to be there, i don't understand, they always pick up my phone when we call. there are some groups that are are openly listened to, some groups are ignored and this budget does that same thing. it has no creative solutions. it will not expand or strengthen the energy portfolio, nothing for catastrophic wile fires, nothing for severe droughts but it gives opportunity for more jobs going overseas, higher taxes and higher fees for the

american people. when we go into this part of the process is when i turn it over to my friends on that side of the aisle their job is to defend their budget. it's going to be a difficult job to do. i understand. that's what i had to do in the last two years of the bush administration. when you're in the minority, you get to do that. but your spin is going to be the envy of every las vegas contortionist. i think it's a blueprint for future partisan bickering and aspects it's not what i could have been. i feel bad about that. i will yield back my and notice the first issue, i have 30 second left. trying to get everyone to ask ms. jewel questions. i will yield to you can start this defend the undefendable. >> thank you very much for this rare opportunity to defend. thank you, secretary jewell for being here. only one person in the room i

might add has actually produced a budget for the coming fiscal year and that is secretary jewell. despite announcing they would have a budget by now, house republicans can't seem to agree on a plan. the failure is due to internal bickering and the same republican extremism that caused government shutdowns, debt crisis and resignation of our previous speaker. when it comes to appropriations, the last time the house passed a stand alone interior bill was 2009 when the house was controlled by the demeanoocrats. the budget request the budget secretary submitted will result in $10 billion of revenue flowing sbo the pockets of american taxpayers. the request includes legislative proposals that if enacted would result in another $4.5 billion in revenue. if congress just got out of the way, enacted this budget request for the department would pay for

itself and have more than a billion dollars left over. house republicans have not budget of their ownant can't pass individual appropriation bills. but that doesn't stop them from having loud opinions about the administration's proposal ps as with health care policy, foreign policy, defense policy and even nominees to the supreme court, the president is the adult in the room while the house republicans criticize and attack all of the administration's work. fail to do your job and criticize those who are doing theirs is hypocritical and irresponsible. i would encourage my colleagues across the aisle rather than spending your five minutes attacking the budget, take your time to exmain your own views on what our spending priorities should be and how you suggest that we pay for them. the budget request would spend $78060 million including $300 million in mandatory spending to mark the 100th anniversary of

the national park association. the committee has yet to move on mps sen tenl legislation. this budget includes $2 billion in mandatory funding to respond to the impacts of climate change in at risk coastal communities. this committee has yet to consider legislation related to climate change impact and is not even clear that that the majority of the committee believes climate change is real. this includes realistic spending proposals to address wildfire and drought, tw of the most devastating problems facing the west. this committee continues to hold partisan hearings during which they blame trees if are the fire and fish for the drought. this budget contemplates the real investments of clean energy. this committee addresses in the old rhetoric of drill baby drill. this calls for meaningful invest until the programs serving the first americans while this

committee pursues deals that will destroy native american sites and harm the quality of life in indian country. i expect some of my colleagues will ignore these specifics and spend today railing against the democratic spending in general. to them i offer a reminder, only two presidents have reduced a deficit during their tenure, bill clinton and barack obama. producing a detailed bumt request the entire government is an enormous task. attacking this bumt without producing an alternative requires none of the above. with that let me yield back. >> thank you. ms. lumus. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you secretary jewell. it's always nice to have here here in dour committee. the department of the interior managing 500 million acres of the land. it's about one-fifth of the whole united states. half of my state, half is managed by the department of the

interior. so you manage as much as i'm responsible for representing in that state. blm is the majority of that of course with smaller portions being controlled by the fish and wild life service, national park service. the bureau of ocean energy management governs the waters generally past three miles offshore, except for the gulf of mexico out to the territorial limit. or it's 1.76 billion acres. i know that's a lot to be responsible for. but in the part that i'm responsible for, which is the state of wyoming, we are officially back in recession with only four other states. and it's because in large part, i would argue, of the policies of the department of the interior, especially with regard to the coal