high school, but i learned how to pump gas. well, today that job is gone. and many service areas we find in our economy, employers trying to figure out ways to reduce cost. and one of the few areas through technology that they can reduce cost impacts those high school kids that don't have those skills that they have yet to learn. and we have in our state of ohio, it's reflected really in many other states, more and more individuals with a lack of skills not being able to find those service jobs that once were plentiful when i was a kid. in urban areas it's even more where we have meaningful regulations, sometimes they have just the opposite effect, which

i think is senator lee's point of trying to allow for those who have the skill set, maybe that i had when i was 16 and hadn't yet developed are being left behind. >> if you think you're dating yourself on your first job, wait till i tell you what my first job was. i see senator peters has arrived. senator, just in the knick of time. >> well -- >> you're on. >> thank you. >> you haven't been to a committee meeting in a long time where you walk in, sit down and the chairman says you're on. >> i need to do this more often. thank you for that. senator furman thank you for being here to talk about economic issues and considering the future. long-term structural changes that seem to be occurring in our economy that i think will pose some potentially significant challenges for us in the decades ahead. i enjoyed reading the economic report, job creation, dynamism, et cetera.

one issue that's addressed in here and i think you've done some studies related to it as well deals with the pace of technological change and the impact it's having on the job market. i think i heard is some of that as i walked in here today. it's always been -- i would like your reflections and thoughts. it has always been that folks have always feared that technology would destroy jobs but it's never materialized. technology has destroyed jobs. it has. it's created more jobs, they tend to be better, higher paying jobs and a lot of routine jobs have been replaced with ones that require higher education and skill training. it seems as if a lot of folks think we may be getting to an inflection point, that technology is advancing to the

point where those higher skill jobs can even be done with technology, that physicians, for example, when you look at watson and the medical breakthroughs that are being done with watson that can diagnose disease, perhaps, better than most physicians can do it. we know radiologists, there are machines that can do the job probably better than a lot of radiologists can from that technology. that we may be getting to the point especially with artificial intelligence that can radically transform the job market. a recent study i was looking at that thought that the matter of the next decade or two, 50% of the job classifications in the country could probably be done

better with some sort of technology that than a human can do it. that's disturbing but it's a challenge. what are your thoughts on that and if, indeed, that's something we need to be concerned about, what sort of policies should we be thinking about right now? >> thank you for that. i think that bears a lot of thought. i don't think it's particularly a partisan issue. i don't think we have all the answers. i think it's something we should all be grappling with together. i think one hypothesis you stated is right. for thousands of years, we've invented new machines. they've replaced things people used to do. most of what people did in the 19th century, they're not doing today. we're much better off as a country for it. the problem is when that happens

abruptly and you're not prepared for it. the consequence of that can be one of two things. one is inequality. and the 50% figure, if you break it down by income, it's higher than that if your income is lower and it's well lower than 50% if your income is higher. and if you see a lot of lower-waged jobs replaced, that's reducing demand for those types of workers. that lowers their wages and raises inequality. one bad side effect is inequality. the second is i certainly believe that over time, if you lose a job, you'll be able to find another job and, hopefully, a better job. if a lot of people lose a job at once, though, that process can be long and painful. and we don't always make it as easy as we should. what we should be doing in this regard is make sure people have more skills to take advantage of so they're comp pleming the innovations and benefitting more from them. make sure we have a labor market that's better from moving people from job to job. the president's proposed a wage insurance program that would help get people back on their feet by insuring them against some of the wage loss associated

with a job as they move into a new job. and there's probably a lot more than that that we need to do as well that we need to keep thinking about. >> that's the challenge with the training as well, as technology particularly with artificial intelligence and the promise of that is. there's significant challenges, but it may be difficult to train folks as well in that area. these are not things i'm worrying about happening in the next year or five years or, perhaps, ten. but at least from some of my reading, it's something we should be very concerned about, looking beyond that. for example, i've done a lot of work with autonomous vehicles. you talked about autonomous vehicles. something we're passionate about in detroit. incredible applications and most importantly will save tens of thousands of lives with the types of technology that will make cars safer, eventually

leading to autonomous vehicles. they can have great promise for the economy. we should talk a little bit about what you see happening with autonomous vehicles, transforming the economy and some of the investments necessary with the federal government to make that happen? >> i think that's an important question. autonomous vehicles, everyone is interested in them. american car makers, japanese automakers and the like. it's really important to make sure that a lot of that is happening here. state regulations that allow experimentational testing. we let cars with drivers on the road. that's already quite dangerous. it's often safer to let these cars on the road. and to make sure you're not letting your fears get in the way of being able to undertake that type of experimentation. basic research that, you know,

we fund here in washington is is an important compliment to the more applied research that's under taken by the companies me more applied research that's under taken by the companieemen more applied research that's under taken by the companiement more applied research that's under taken by the companieemen more applied research that's under taken by the companies that are doing that investment in an infrastructure that supports both autonomous vehicles as well as, for example, electric cars and other types. there can often be a chicken and egg problem. if they're not there, the infrastructure won't be there, if the infrastructure's not there, they won't be there. the government can help with the chicken and egg solution. i think there's a number of different steps we are thinking about and need to keep thinking about. >> great. thank you so much. appreciate it. >> chairman, thank you so much.

i want to follow up with one last thing while we have you here. if you could take yourself out of you're current job and you're back at brookings or teaching at harvard and i came to you and said, you know, we talked about this runaway spending related to the population, the bulge that existed, the baby boom generation. we've done a number of things to address that. we've had sequestration, tax revenue increase that raised income taxes on the highest category. economic growth will help us address that problem. we still have the impact of this bulge of baby boom, affecting social security and medicare. you know the numbers and so forth. if we were able to summon the

will to bring together bipartisan, bi cameraal executive branch working together -- i don't know why this is doing this. maybe my time is up. but what would you recommend in terms of what we do now or what the next administration, next congress should be thinking about in terms of addressing the challenge of the long-term problem that we have here? and doing it in a way to preserve the programs to they're not at risk, health care entitles will be available to them so they don't have that concern, what would you recommend if that will was there, if they say we want to go forward, particularly given what we've already done but now what we clearly know we need to do and do it in a way that isn't disruptive to the economy or retirement abilities and capabilities. >> if i wasn't in the government and it was a year for now i would say look back at president obama's last budget.

it had lots of great ideas. setting the reimbursement rates rather than setting them the way we do now, which often results in rates set too high. on drugs, using the same way to purchase drugs, as we do for people in medicaid. reforming the benefit structure in medicare so that there's more cost sharing in areas like part b, home health, reduce the ability of medigap to blunt that cost saving and have more income-related premiums. i would think both private and public in terms of health, so-called cadillac tax, sponsored insurance is one of the most important steps that we have to slow the growth of private health care that results in additional revenue, based on an idea that's widely support bid both democratic and republican economists. more broadly, i would say that you want to think of tax

benefits, tax preferences, those are termed tax expenditures and my predecessors who served under president regular sben president bush have all said we should be looking at those because they're also on autopilot. they're not an efficient way of accomplishing goals and not a particularly fairway either. i would bring that into it and curb those tax expenditures for high-income households like the incentives we have for health, housing and pensions. >> i hope we can get to that point without getting there by crisis in 1983 when social security was about ready to go belly up. president reagan reached out to then speaker of the house tip o'neill. they secured about 33, 35 years of solvency for social security. it has been done, it can be done. you have to have the pistol at the temple of the politician in order to get it done. often times when you're doing it in crisis form rather than

laying out and doing it in a logical way, which doesn't end up making mistakes and putting people at risk. i appreciate you giving us that template. hopefully, we can get to that point without having to get to a crisis. appreciate you coming in and being with us today and your continuing availability to the congress. working together is the only way to solve this we make appreciate you doing that. we'll keep the record open for five business days. and that would be for you also, if you so desire. with that, the hearing, thanks

again to you, is adjourned. you

. >> el know sal joins us to d disdus campaign 2016 and the prospect of the first woman to be u.s. president. and at 8:30 a.m. eastern, author crystal wright joins us to talk about her book "con job" sanctuary cities and racial division. be sure to watch tuesday live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion.

>> a week before the all-important florida primary, the start of the winner take all primaries for the republicans. joining us from tampa is ed o'keefe from "the washington post." his story today, front page, looking at the marco rubio campaign. as your piece points out, the rubio campaign has failed to deal with the fundamentals of campaigning. how so? >> el well, in so many different ways as we' heard from candidates, this campaign seems to just sort of be skimming the surface in the various states since iowa and south carolina probably more than new hampshire. quick visits in and out, very little attention paid to cultivating any kind of a ground game and making sure that

volunteers are out doing the fundamentals of politicking. anticipate over and over again, we were hearing from people in some of the states that have voted in the last few weeks that if only the senator had put in a little more time, a little more effort, if only his people had sent a few more staffers for the ground game, he may have prev l prevailed. senator jim inhofe said he was on the verge of something but ted cruz is spending more time there. we heard it in kansas as well. ted cruz and donald trump were at the exact same location. if he had been there, goodness knows how good he could have done. and ditto in tennessee, placed third. despite the support of the governor and the state senior sart lamar alexander, also who was convinced that rubio had a game plan for tennessee and ultimately he did not. we're hearing it now in florida where i am today. he's struggling to put together

some kind of a ground game that would help him win next week and surpass dnd trump in the winner-take-all contest here. >> it is a must-win state for senator rubio, having won only the minnesota caucuses and over the week, the puerto rico primary. but the trump campaign in a word is scathing. >> that's right, it's a full blown attack ad. you can put it in the dictionary or encyclopedia as an example of what exactly attack ads can be. this one goes after rubio on sort of his greatest hits, the greatest hit, the greatest scandals of his political tenure. questions about a home purchase he made years ago as a state lawmaker. questions about money he was spending on a republican party charge dard here in florida where he was speaker. there was a building issue that was later sorted out but led to years of bad headlines for him. why he was putting personal expenses on a charge card that was meant only for party business. and then the fact that he is, by all means, the least attentive

senator, the one who shows up the least in the last year or so to vote. a laundry list of things that rubio will be faulted for. it looks somewhat similar, but is more ominous in tone than the attack ads that the bush campaign and its superpac has been running against senator rubio. this is a candidate who has flaws who would be easily picked apart in these kind of televisions ads and sure enough that's exactly what donald trump is doing, airing right now in florida, rubio's home state. >> ened co'keefe, where is jeb bush at the moment? >> the latest guidance i have on his people is he has nothing to announce just yet. not only is that notable, because these two had a sort of professional personal relationship through the years, not necessarily as close as once believed, but sort of a

mentor/mentee or, you know, colleague to colleague kind of relationship. a mutual understanding and appreciation for what they were doing. the fact that bush doesn't want to get involved suggests to me two things. a, he doesn't think it will necessarily help rubio in an environment dominated by trump, who is so expertly picked apart bush and basically destroyed his chances. and b, it suggests that bush doesn't think rubio can win so why bother. the reason i think that is if you talk to bush's closest soshts, some of his top donors across the country and here in florida, they say i don't want to waste my time, i don't want to waste my money on an effort that may ultimately come up fruitless because he can't surpass trump. >> finally you point, all of these failures have all but doomed senator rubio's chances of securing the gop nomination. can you elaborate? >> el with, you know, if you look at the delegate maps right now, trump has such a wide lead.

only a little more than a third of the delegates have rolled out. he trails trump and he trails cruz badly. with contests in michigan and idaho where he's not expected to do well, according to a recent poll, he's tanking in michigan, meaning he'll get robbed of delegates yet again. it becomes harder and harder for him mathematically to get the delegates needed to win the nominati nomination. remember the magic number in republican circles is 1,237. by no means is anyone near that, and frankly ted cruz had such a good night saturday that he caught up almost with donald trump. nine in the next ten days or so, he may pull just about even with trump. it's becoming harder for rubio who continues to insist if you were to get it to some kind of a floor fight in cleveland with the debate in july, he could ultimately prevail. but it's harder and harder to make that argument when so far at least he's only gone 2-20 in the 20 states that have voted. >> this is the headline.

senator rubio on the ropes after a string of letdowns, the reporting of ed o'keefe who's joining us from tampa florida. it's also available online at washington post.com. thank you for being with us. >> anytime, take care. >> there are primaries tuesday in michigan and mississippi, with a little less than 300 delegates at stake between democrats and republicans. we'll bring you the results to those contests and speeches with the candidates beginning live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you'll have a chance to share your thoughts by phone, facebook and twitter. >> i'm a teacher. the most important thing to me right now is education. i'm looking at the candidates very closely for their programs in education. i'm not happy in the last 15 years or so with all the poor standards and the common core that's been happening and so i would like to see that changed

around. i'm going to vote for either bernie sanders or hillary clinton. i'm happy with both of those choices and interested to see what their education plans would actually turn out to be. >> i've decided i'm voting for ted cruz for the candidacy because he's a constitutional scholar, he's eloquent and he is principled, consistently out of all of the candidates so far. >> the head of u.s. customs and border protection recently spoke on capitol hill about the budget request nor 2017. it costs for $14 billion in spending,en increase of $107 million. the commission was also asked about drug trafficking, unaccompanied minors a the the u.s. sourn border and the implementation of visa waiver restrictions. this is just under two hours.

i'm going to call the hearing to order. today we call gil kerlikowske. fiscal year 2017 budget for customs and border protection is $13.9 billion. age 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 may not be affordable as it's evaluated by the totality of this budget. and we discussed this between the two of us yesterday.

commissioner, as you know, i discussed this with you. we're really concerned about the hiring problems that have to be fixed. the budget request funds for 23861 officers, which include 2,000 officers funded in 2014. commissioner, taking four years to hire 2,000 officers is way too long. i know you plan to send a request to authorize 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 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 leaves 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 98 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 ruest for u.s. customs and border protection in fiscal year 2017. about half of that increase say tributable 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 weight 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 counternetwork 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. 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

operationally 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 in 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 travel prevention act of 2015, and we cancelled 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 detecting and 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. to the flow of unaccompanied children and families. 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 ports of 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 biometric 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

preep -- appropriations committee for a statement that 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 of 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. cbp is one of the world's 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 in 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 enforcement of 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. i cite the director of the

center for 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 district. 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

treatment and education is critical, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that 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. i'm gonna start off with the questioning here and the flag i raised as i was talking to you, staffing is something that 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 happy 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. how do you justify a reduction in manning when cbp cannot articulate a validated requirement for the number of 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 area interdiction agents. by your own numbers, cbp is 12% below the goal. for air interdiction agents, 93 below the goal of 775 agents. how can we officially use our air assets if we don't have enough 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 stationed 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, gao released a report

on the treatment of unaccompanied children in dhs custody. which 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. for instance, cbp forms lacked specific indicators and questions agent officers should use to assess whether a child 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 voluntarily return. the report found that cbp personnel did not document the basis for 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 the discussion last year, and also as a result of the gao, we did a new series of training for the border patrol, to make sure that 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 sal dania from i.c.e. were in, i believe, arizona, to sign new repatiation agreements with mexico, to make sure that there was close coordination with the government of mexico upon returning someone, so that 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 crossed 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 -- in heroin 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 el paso, or whether it's at jfk

airport, heroin seizures almost predominantly are through a port of entry and either carried in a concealed part of the 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 waiver 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-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 prevention 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 eight or nine or ten months, every single day your name would be run against a series of databases because we don't want you suddenly to say, now i'm going to go ahead and use the esta, it's already been approved, i'm gonna get on a plane, and we say, wait, in the last 48 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, a terrorist prevention group that will look at this much more in depth, on a 24-hour basis. >> are you staffed to handle this workload? >> in the budget, we requested an additional 40 personnel to go to the targeting center. i would think frankly if there's a real jewel in the crown and -- in 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 staff have visited it, and i would encourage them to see that 24/7

operation. but as for the additional people, including working in a network 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 interpol screening and start passenger information exchange agreements. can you tell us what the requirements are and how they would be put in place? ngets they must check that foreign passport against interpol's lost and 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 europoll 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. i think that's part of the benefit frankly of the visa waiver program, it brings us together to all assess risk and realize that we're all in the same boat. >> the legislation directed you to terminate program countries for failure to comply with certain agreements. do you foresee the termination of any countries from the program? >> 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 shortfall 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.

that's the problem is comprehensive immigration reform. 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 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. well, now it's back. 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, that that's particularly helpful. and the fence that has been built, i think it's approximately 600 miles of different types of 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 clearance 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 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 i 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 don't think you'll be able to answer them, i'd be surprised if

you can. 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 appreciate and 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. that's a much harder thing to do, and we need partners in order to do that.

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 department of homeland security, the director really was pretty 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. and they hadn't done a good job of that previously. have they gotten better at 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 asks these identified partners to -- gave them a 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 using social media to identify someone who may be entering our country and posing 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 just for cvp. >> 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 you. >> mr. quayle? >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, thank you. i believe you said earlier this might be your last hearing, and i just want to say thank you so much for all the 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.

but that we should have detention, have some sort of deterrent. at the same time, we think that the immigration reform, sensible immigration reform, we think the wall is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem that we have. so we like to see the moderation there. because we want 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 help mexico secure

the southern 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 -- for us to 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, but 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. 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 y'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 glea -- i agree, i think roberto jacobson should be the ambassador, it's unfair that she's been delayed for something -- that has nothing to do with it, it's very unfair. >> 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. that people found crossing the border with marijuana, or other drugs, actually, there's no zero tolerance, you actually don't refer for prosecution, everyone who intends to enter our country and poison our youth. so 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's multi-ton or multi-kilo loads, all of those, to my knowledge, would be

referred to the u.s. 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 seems 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 there are clearly going to be cases that they're not going to -- and these are questions that are answered by them -- but i think there are 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 you that 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 request, and to my knowledge, there's never been a request, there's not even a pending request it 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, i don't know of a single -- 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 budget 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, what's 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 significance investments in taxpayer dollars in some technology that did not prove to be useful to the agents on the grouped 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 pretty strong rumor, at least on the texas border, the 200-pound rule of marijuana. i didn't get a response from the attorney general when i asked about that. mr. young? >> thank you, mr. chairman. 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 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 have now? >> i think we're at five and we put another one in mcallen area, so we're now moving to six aerostats. they are fairly expensive to operate because 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 heard 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 -- i have serious concerns about this, and 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. so 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 and i would not stand by if the border patrol was releasing people without going through all 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 -- a 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, within which the fixed tower would make a difference, then 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 results differ compared 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.