time coordinating with the fertilizer guy and talking about soil samples. getting the parts to fix the plan or getting to the bank oar working on leases, doing the paperwork. most of us wish we could get back on the tractor. that's the easy part of the job. clearly farming is not just driving a tractor. and it will be critically important to care for the considerable sitz and the cropping mix. the regional locations of the farms. the unique characteristics in developing this new definition. i believe that the conference report provides excellent guidelines for your consideration. and i hope every effort will be made to make certain throughout the process there's flo disruption to family operations provided in the statute. i would like to get your

thoughts on that. because in some south, east agriculture has a broad portfolio and many farms have multiple crops. and farming throughout the country, most farm families have a lot of farm income. and the second part of my question is, when do you expect to issue proposed regulations on the actively engaged interpretation? particularly given the equal important competing issues that you'll have to tackle, including implementation of the disaster programs and the arc programs, which by the end of 14 or 15 or when will we have some sensz o f what that is? and how much input will the department allow for producers to actually talk about how they

feel about this actively engaged definition. >> your microphone. >> congressman. we expect and anticipate to have a proposed rule by the end of this year, call year 2014 on the issue of act i liveively engage. and i say proposed concerning the input. that would give people the opportunity to weigh in on what we propose. i think it is fair to say we recognize the diversity of american agriculture and we celebrate it. we know there are small operations. there are mid sized operations and there are large operations. and it depends on where pane what you farm in terms of the size and scope and what is involved in the management of the farming operation. congress has indeed given us a

very narrow lane in terms of what our capacity is to define actively engaged by virtue of the restriction that we are not essentially par tis pay tor involved in family operations, and there's a fairly broad definition of what a family operation is. i think there was and is a concern on the part of many an appropriate concern that there are circumstances where folks who are really not actually farming and really not actually engaged in the management of a farming operation, but who have invested in a farming operation, who participate in a very minimal way, in decision making have been able to qualify for benefits. and i think it is appropriate for us to take a look at that. and i suspect that's basically going to be the primary focus.

i don't think your family farmers need to be concerned about this because of the restriction contained in the law that you all passed. #. >> okay, we'll be looking fwarld to that. let me change gears for a moment and talk about the forest products. my district's rule economy has a strong forest products industry. and i'm excited that given the changes enacted in the farm bill, it's clear that forest products are eligible to fully participate in the usda labor program. as you know prior to the farm bill there was a, quote, mature market, end of quote, limitation placed on the user of certain products. now that companies will be submitting applications for the program, will usda move forward in processing them despite the regulatory mature market limitation, which is now outside the statute as a result of the farm bill? >> we would anticipate and expect action on that some time

in the winter -- the latter part of 2014 in terms of our ability to incorporate those changes in the bio-based labeling program. >> i think my time has expired. >> mr. chairman, if i could, with your permission, 30 seconds of additional response. we are very sensitive to the challenges that you have alluded to in terms of forest industry. and that's why next week we are having a wood conference at usda that will encourage federal agencies to take a look at the utilization of wood more effectively frequently in building projects and improvement projects for a variety of reason, not the least of which is the reason that we think we can make the case that it's climate friendly and with new changes in the structure and design of composite materials, we think in some cases it can be as strong as steel and concrete. >> mr. valadeo. >> thank you, mr. chair.

mr. secretary. i'm glad that you referenced the fresh potato exclusion in the wic program. i would think that if folks wanted to encourage consumption of vegetables other than potatoes then it would be a consistent policy at farmers markets and supermarkets. as it currently stands with current vouchers people at a sup he were market can't process fresh white potatoes but they can purchase them at a farmer's market. i find that a curious inconsistency. i have a letter that i signed along with 65 other members of the house including mr. rooney and ms. ping gree that express continued disappointment with this unnecessary exclusion. mr. chairman, i would like to submit a copy of that letter for the record. switching gears a little bit. your budget highlights rural opportunities and speaks about the number of communities, families and businesses that

have been helped by usda programs. we are all glad that the rural development has been able to help these communities and families, but i think the credit should lie with congress instead of the department. the overall budget for rural development has been harder hit than any other areas in your budget. if we enacted your proposal, far fewer communities, families and businesses would be helped. take the water and waste disposal accounts for example. you have proposed for fiscal year 2015 appropriation of $304 million which is a 52% reduction for the levels congress appropriated in 2014. you also proposed 304 million in 2014. it was hard for businesses to retain jobs or expand without access to clean and affordable water. how did the 52% reduction for a program that provides crucial infrastructure and where there is pretty wide bipartisan support help rural communities? >> congressman, i think it's important to point out that we

are dealing in the context of this budget in terms of sequester and budget reductions and overall caps that we have to live within. 50% of the discretionary part of our budget is in four categories, it's in wic, it's in fire suppression, it's in rental assistance and food safety. 50% of our budget. when sequester comes, when budget caps are imposed, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to apply those reductions in that 50% category, very difficult. in most cases those items are increased. in many cases they're increased. certainly that's true of fire suppression and it's certainly true of the wic program, so that means the other 50% of our budget disproportionately shares in the reductions. as it relates to the water and wastewater system, part of the reason why there is a need for less money is in the grant program, the grant program as

you probably know is designed -- was designed to buy down interest rates on these projects. interest rates are pretty doggone low right now so there is not the need there once was. there is an important necessity for us to focus on particular sized facilities so we are faced with some difficult challenges and difficult choices and that's the reason why that number is what it is. >> okay. and i also want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman for his concerns of the cuts of the section 502 direct loan program and self-help housing programs. this past summer i spent a few days out in lamont, california, south of bakersfield with some families that were actually building their own homes with the help of these low interest loans. it's obviously an amazing program because people actually take the time, families get together, they build a

community, they build their home and actually, i mean, when you see a community get together like that, work together on each other's homes, gain some talent, pride in ownership, pride in their own efforts and actually learn some new talents from this or new skills, it's a beneficial program. this program obviously took the same type of hit. this program saw a cut from 900 million down to 360 million. i was disappointed. i wondered your rationale for the cut? >> first of all, i want to be clear. in terms of the direct loan program, we are not cutting that program in terms of the budget authority, we are actually increasing it, but the cost -- the subsidization and cost of borrowing, the subsidy rate went from a little over 2% to over 7% in a single year so the reality is that more money buys less. it's not that we want to buy less, it is a fact of the

marketplace. secondly, congress a number of years ago changed the way in which it funded rental assistance. in the past you all funded rental assistance projects as they came on board and fully funded them in the year they were created. over the course of the last 15 years or so you have changed that dynamic so that every year we have additional units that come into our budget that are expiring under the -- under their first and existing contract, like it might be a 15 year krd, it might be a 10 year contract, a 5 year contract, now it is a single contract. now we have 7,000 rental units we have to focus which concentrates on the 285,000 families that are receiving rental assistance. if you want to, you know, not have a cap, fine. if you want to look at other aspects of the budget, if you want to reduce fire suppression and put 45 a other homes at greater risk, if you want to

reduce wic, 8.7 million women, infant and children that benefit from that, fine. the realities are there are difficult choices to make, but i want to make sure it's clear, we have no control over the subsidy rate on these loan programs. when interest rates go up and when borrower's income is down, it makes it much more costly to fund these programs. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> ms. pingree. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here this morning, for the great work that you do in handling so many diverse and not always easy questions. i have plenty, but i actually think my first question is very simple. i want to talk a little bit about the farm bill implementation, and i'm going to use a specific example of the main senior farm share. so back in maine we're hearing from a lot of people, farmers, consumers alike who are worried about the implementation of farm bill programs, particularly those programs that were left stranded without full funding

after the last farm bill expired in 2012. there's a lot of anxiety in my home state about when the funding will be released and what changes they should expect. so i was a little concerned just recently, this is a new hampshire headline from maine, that it says the delay threatens farm program from maine seniors. the usda has not yet provided a time line for implementation of the senior farmer's market nutrition program which funds the maine senior farm share. seniors and farmers are receiving mixed messages about whether funding will be released this year at all. the state's website says we must wait for guidance from the usda rashding what will be required from state agencies to on perfect flat 2014 and when we will be authorized to proceed. our 2014 grant amount is also unknown. in my opinion, a delay in the farm share program is especially harmful because this is the time of year when farmers are planning for their upcoming growing season. they need to know how many seniors will be signing up for farm shares and this article

notes that until the usda releases funding, maine can't allow their farmers to apply for the program. now we only have a million people in our state, but last year there were 17,000 maine seniors who were able to take advantage of this, buying food from 118 farmers. so far they're in the dark. do you think you can get the money out the door to help them plan and guarantee we'll have the money this year? >> we've been waiting for the apportionment on those funds from omb. we anticipate in the next couple of weeks we'll have that completed so that should alleviate the concerns you've expressed. >> great. i can tell people there's a very strong likelihood this program will be operating this year? >> yes. >> they'll have the money. okay. that was easy. so i want to -- i want to reiterate a little bit of what congresswoman deloro already said to you. i have some of the same concerns and i want to thank her for advocacy on the poultry slaughter rule. i have a lot of concerns and i

appreciate the many answers you gave. i'm going to take a different takt on this but i think there will be a negative impact because of the poultry slaughter rule, i think it will have an impact on food safety, worker welfare, poultry slaughterhouse workers have consistently suffered injuries and illnesses at a rate more than twice the national average and because the line speed could increase up to 175 birds per minute i think it's hard to say that won't continue happening. here's a little bit of a different tact. so since you're currently proposing the rule that allows the industry to police itself and potentially get even bigger slaughter houses, i want to say that there are many american consumers that are looking for something slightly different when it comes to meat. according to the usda's economic service, per capita meat consumption is declining but demand for meat is growing at 20% per year o are began

anythingically. at the same time small consumers are lowering. i know in my home state in maine, this is true in much of new england and the northeast, farmers have to travel several hours to reach the capability to slaughter their animals. in my opinion, the demand is there and the usda needs to do more to support the infrastructure that connects livestock producers with consumers. you talk about outreach and technical assistance to small and very small processing plants. could you provide me with information on what your total budget was in fy '14 for this activity? >> while we're getting you that number, if i can amplify on what that resource buys. we basically are focused on the 90% of the 6400 plants that we consider to be small that are

under our jurisdiction. we have a small plant help desk that has a hotline that folks can call with any questions they may have. there are training materials and educational materials that are produced. there is a small plant newsletter that goes out on a regular basis and we provide direct help to state agencies in terms of working conditions. i might also point out that this administration has been encouraging mobile slaughter units to be able to address the issue of distance between processing facilities. we stant ready to continue as part of our know your farmer initiative to help engage in that and we've also been encouraging folks to take better advantage and more advantage of the interstate meat rule that basically allows for an opportunity for state assisted review. so there is a multitude of steps that we're taking. let me see if i can get you the specific number. >> i will -- i'll give you one

more piece of information. you can follow up with the information. so i just want to say, i submitted a title you may remember that was called the local farms and jobs act. one of the things we called for was an advisory group to help develop guidance on food safety guidance, process control and pathogen prevention in small processing plants. we also suggested that the usda work with an advisory group to develop a report and set of recommendations on steps that can be taken to assist the small processor. the previous report, which was published in 2006, is now eight years old so i guess i'm asking or you go issing that under existing authorities could you explore moving these two pieces forward as part of your effort to invest in local and regional food systems and could you use some of the research and technical assistance funding that's in fsis budget to move forward on an advisory group or update of that report? >> those are fair questions and fair requests. we certainly should take them into serious consideration.

you know, i -- i think it is important to note that we have been engaged and involved in terms of market development in a very significant way. our view is that in order to help these smaller and mid-sized producers we have got to create more market opportunity which is why we've been involved in expanding a number of farmer's markets and food hubs. i will continue to focus on that as well. >> let me reinforce. i know my time is up. i do appreciate with all the work you've done with know your food, know your farmer. i think you've done a lot of work to expand this market and i would say this market is growing very nast spite of whatever anyone has done. it's a huge interest and often it's the inability of the producer to meet the demands of the market. >> mr. forden berry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank you to coming to nebraska to speak to the rural futures conference. i thought you did an outstanding job retailing the great 34er7b

agricultural story. i was grateful for your attendance there. i have three points i'd like to make with you. the first one being, i very much appreciated what you began with, talking about how 40,000 new farmers and disadvantaged farmers will come into our system, our agriculture family through the efforts of this farm bill. i worked on some components of that. but i do want to return to the point that mr. bishop raised earlier regarding payment limitations and closing loopholes. in the farm bill i had offered an amendment on the house side that put stricter payment limitations in place and it helped what we thought was going to help you with actively engaged rules. the senate did the same things. the conference committee saw fit to take that out with an extorsion of the process. i thought this was a good agricultural reform measure. it passed on a bipartisan basis but we lost. the residue of what is left though again gives you the

authority to define actively engaged. there is a general accounting office -- accountability office report out. a farm in the midwest received $400,000 of payments in 2012 organized as a general partnership with six corporations and 11 individual members, two of whom apparently lived in south florida and one was 88 years old. now this type of thing gives a black eye to agriculture overall. when we are these exotic financial arrangements, these legal loopholes that are leveraged, when we are in a time of declining budgets and the need to be very, very aware of the impact that our programs have not only in terms of budgets but in terms of perception, we have to do a very robust job here of thoroughly going through this process and ensuring that, again, deserving farmers who are a part of the agriculture community, not simply passive investors, are receiving payments.

i'm worried because 10% of farmers receive 70% of the payments. and when you have a situation like that, we and you may be inadvertently underwriting the concentration and undermining what we're doing on the other side of the department which is so important of trying to bring new people into agriculture. i'm very concerned about this and i'd like to hear your response. the second issue is regarding adverse wage rates. this might be a little bit out of your purview, but in nebraska it is $13.41. i have two small farmers who came into my office trying to use h2a money doing this legally. they're being pushed out of the market. the wage rate is $12.22. $10.89. $11 in california. now the department of labor, you apparently shot this out to the department of labor, but we've got a peculiar grouping of states here that is driving up

this wage rate and potentially, again, pushing small farmers who are trying to be entrepreneurial and using, again, diverse and traditional means of farming production that we're encouraging in the rest of the bill, this ear being pushed out of these marketplaces. the third issue is regarding the drought mitigation. very important to us in nebraska. with this being the year that we see through the office of the chief economist competitive federal funding for drought mitigation research. >> so, first of all, congressman, i made a mistake in responding to congressman bishop's question. i really should have had you respond to him about actively engaged. i mean, honestly, i think that is the nub. i think congress has given us, as i said, a very narrow range of options to look at because of the fairly broad definition of

family farming. fair enough. you have raised concerns about situations where that -- the rules have been stretched and creatively utilized, and i think our task is to take a look at what makes sense and what doesn't in the real world and basically provide credibility and legitimacy to whatever support system we have. this support system is important for farmers, as you know, and we can talk about how many -- what percent get what percent, but i think it's important for all of us to explain to our friends in urban and suburban america that support systems are used to design the risk of farming. farming is a difficult and risky business from a financial perspective because you have no impact on mother nature and no impact on some foreign country creating market havoc. we have reduced the risk and we keep people in the farming business. we obviously want a program that

people believe in so we will work very hard to try to do the right thing in this area of actively engaged. >> all of this is said in the spirit of being a very strong supporter of farm payment system and the ups and downs of the vagaries in the market and to give farmers the control they used to have but when you've gotten to the size of graduating from that need of public support or you're working around it, it's a concern. >> i'm not disagreeing. should i respond? >> if you could respond. >> you know, my response, and it's an honest one to the adverse wage rate issue, is to fix the system and that would help, i think, comprehensive immigration reform and new opportunities for usda to be engaged in that process in establishing wage levels would be the solution for the concerns that you've raised in the long term, and on drought mitigation, we are support being the drought mitigation people that do good work in terms of the monitor in

nebraska. we will continue to focus on ways we can provide additional resources. we announced a $30 million competitive grant program on water that is involved to folks. we'll continue to be very engaged in this space. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. secretary for coming to the committee today. i represent kansas. obviously a big farm producing state, a lot of wheat farmers, a lot of livestock. so your role in looking out for kansas farmers and consumers and everyone across the state is very important to me as i'm sure all the members of the committee in terms of their states as well and across the whole country. i have a question following up on the farm bill compromise that ultimately passed the house and senate. i know you were involved in helping ensure that we have a long-term bill that creates certainty for farmers, predictability, that responds to the needs of crop insurance and other programs. there's a lot of things to like

about the bill. there a there's a lot of things not to like as well. one of the distressing portions is the balance that came out in terms of -- there are a lot of people that are hungry and in need. we work to ensure we feed people on the committee and we also take care of the family farmer. when the bill came forward it had a sort of compromise in which 1% of the reductions out of the -- came out of a food stamp program and about 7% of reductions came out of commodity programs to help farmers. some people thought that was a little lopsided. i was one of those folks. but that was what ultimately came out of the compromise in this congress. it was looked at as the balance and the people are looking for the parties to work together and find a balance and that was it apparently. yet now we see that hard fought compromise may not come to fruition. quote, when congress passed the

farm bill earlier this year it expected to save 8.6 billion over ten years by tightening a loophole in the food stamp or snap program but it's not going to happen. so what was already a lopsided compromise is now not even going to happen. i think what most people in this country want to ensure is that if you qualify for food stamps, you get food stamps and if you don't qualify, you don't qualify. there was an effort by congress to fix what some call loophole. many supported it. i guess my question for you is were you aware when that bill was going forward that those savings wouldn't actually materialize on the snap program? and what can you do in your role as secretary to ensure the intent of congress to ensure savings will actually happen. >> first of all, i really did not consider or think about what individual states, governors and state legislators would do in response to the farm bill passage. i was focused on getting the bill passed and trying to figure out a compromise, particularly

in the dairy place that was the major stumbling block. so, no idea. there was no indication one way or the other. and, frankly, as a former governor and as a former state senator, i respect obviously the role of both state legislatures and governors to make the best use of their resources for the best interests of the folks. now i have always said when there was a discussion about this issue, i have always said that the right way from my perspective to reduce the snap numbers, both in terms of numbers of people and in terms of dollars, is to try to find ways in which we can better link the job opportunities that are being created in states and the folks who are on snap who are looking in and cap panel of working. one of the exciting opportunities i think this farm bill presents is the ability to really dig down with states to do a much better job of creating that link. it's hard for me to understand why state work force development offices aren't doing a better

job of communicating with state human service offices because they know where the jobs are and they know who the snap beneficiaries are. there ought to be a way that we can better connect those two things. if we do, we're going to see better reductions in the people needing snap and the cost of that program. >> mr. secretary, i think there's broad bipartisan support for that and everyone would concur that finding way for people to go to work is the best way to bring people out of po o poverty and feed people. the question comes back to compromise, it's lopsided, isn't going to be achieved and so i guess what part of that $8.6 billion that democrats and republicans supported as this sort of let's all work together to find a solution that now the -- half of that solution's no longer going to happen. do you know what portion of that will occur? will any of the $8.6 billion be saved? >> people are still making

decisions in the respective states that are affected by the liheap decision. there are 17 states that are affected. not all 17 states have made a decision so i think it's a little early to determine exactly what that savings are going to be. our focus, and, again, is going to be on two areas that we do control at usda. one is working on those pilots, which we've talked about, and the other is which the chair has brought up, is the issue of integrity. i think conducting 733,000 investigations and interviews last year that disqualified 42,000 folks that were trying to take advantage of the system is an indication that we're serious about that. 1200 businesses that are taking advantage of the program are no longer involved in the program. we're serious about it. the additional resources we're asking for in this budget will allow us to do more of that. and i think the farm bill discussion of redefining what entities are entitled to participate in the snap program in terms of the depth of their offerings in the store, they've

got to do a better job of offering more of the basic food groups will also, i think, substantially reduce the amount of misuse in this program so those are two critical ways where we control the ability to reduce the amount without disqualifying people that would otherwise be qualified for the program. >> right. i certainly appreciate those efforts. i think many in congress do. i think the intent of the bill was to ensure that you had to qualify for food stamps to receive them and to sort of close that loophole and democrats and republicans both supported that. i would hope that you would do all of that to ensure that the congressional intent is followed in the administration of that program. i yield back my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, a couple of members of the subcommittee have mentioned the farm bill. of course, everyone is very happy that it follows agriculture and most people are involved in agriculture one way or another in this nation, whether directly or indirectly, but you have the problem now to

implement this farm bill. what do you see from your standpoint as the priority programs that need to be implemented first? >> well, the first program that's going to be implemented is the disaster assistance for livestock producers. these folks have struggled through two difficult years. the farm bill of 2008 expired and we were not able to provide assistance. we know that has put a strain on small to mid-sized operators. we will on april 15th roll out the disaster assistance programs allowing people to apply for assistance. that will be followed by a series of efforts throughout 200two 2014 in terms of the programs that are important to people that we have access to. i think you'll see a significant amount of activity in 2014. what i have done, mr. chairman, is i have instructed our team at

usda to look at each title of the farm bill, to prioritize specifically what needs to be done first, second, third, fourth, and fifth. we have a convening group that oversees and looks at all of the tiertless and has prioritized activities and we will be very much engaged in outreach and education during the months of -- between now and, say, fall in terms of these safety net programs to make sure farmers know precisely what the programs are going to look like, what their elections and options are, what decisions they have to make and the information they need to make those decisions. we're in the process of determining which land grant programs will have $3 million allocated for that purpose. you'll see quite a bit of activity throughout the year. >> in your testimony you talk about the new standard for snack foods and schools that preserve flexibility for activities like fundraisers and bake sales.

you mention those in particular. would that also include like when a mom was to bring cupcakes for a birthday party? that would include that? >> okay. we're not going to stop mom or dad from bringing cupcakes. >> well, usda's -- >> [ inaudible ] >> absolutely. usda recently proposed a rule requiring that schools establish a local school wellness policy. it states that the policy must also address standards for other foods and beverages available on campus. these would include policies such as those governing classroom parties or school celebrations that involve food. there seems to be a little bit af conflict with this -- when we talk about time honored traditions. maybe usda isn't setting the standards regarding that, but it seems to be mandating that schools do set a policy. is that what the intent is? >> the wellness program has been in existence for some time and this was just a continuation of

that program. and i think primarily what we were attempt to go do and what we announced was to suggest and focus on the marketing during the school day. the theory being if we changed the mix that was in the vending machine or a la carte menu, we would provide consistency in the message. we want healthy snacks to be easy, the easy choice, but we don't want to necessarily restrict the ability of school districts after school hours. we don't want to have them take down the scoreboard that is advertising a particular type of soft drink at this point in time, but we'd like them to be conscious of the need to be consistent messaging. >> so, again, if i'm understanding you right, if a school in some way interpreted this to be that a mom or dad

can't bring their cupcakes -- >> no, that's not -- >> -- has no bearing whatsoever? >> no. i think it is primarily the vending machines that schools operate and the a la carte lines to make sure there is a consistent messages. >> i can tell you there's a lot of moms out there that have, you know, about their bringing chocolate cupcakes to their 2 grader's birthday party at school and the federal government telling them they can't do that or the usda says they can't do that and you have no problem with trying to tell them to intervene whatsoever. >> as a consistent and constant consumer of cupcakes i can tell you that's not the intent. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. at this time i'm going to recognize ms. deloro, mr. forest is kind enough to defer. ms. deloro. >> thank you, mr. chairman and

thank you, to my colleague, mr. yoder. the farm bill historically has been looked at as a safety net to both farmers and for farming and for nutrition and quite honestly that this was really the renting of that historic bipartisan safety net and i'll tell you why in this regard. you see, the farming and ranching community was in the farm bill. when you had talked about the cut in direct payments, then what occurred was an increase in crop insurance opportunities and then, secondly, there was instituted something called shallow loss protection to deal with commodities. now -- so there are places in the farm bill where farmers, ranchers can go to make sure that the safety net isn't rented, with regard to the food stamp beneficiary.

they have nowhere else to go. nowhere else to go. when you cut 1.7 million people and you say we're going to cut your food stamp benefit by $90 a month, they can't deal with shallow loss. they're not dealing with crop insurance. so this was a false construct in this farm bill. let me just ask and i will do this for the record, mr. secretary, because i want to ask something else. this has to do with the crop insurance program. and i've seen the articles that have come out about cheating and skirting, etc. i believe that we ought to provide those terms and a hard look at the crop insurance program. let me lay out the questions and we'll get them to you. do you expect the reforms -- and i applaud you for the reforms that you can have come forward

with. do you expect them to produce producer reforms? who receives crop insurance subsidies? what percentage went to the largest 1% of agri-business? can you talk about the projections for crop insurance in 2014 based on weather and agriculture? are we in fact going to reduce enrollment and payment and particularly who gets these subsidies? and we both know that 26 individuals who get at least $1 million in their premium subsidies are protected statutorily from our and taxpayers knowing who they are so i get the questions to you and i would love to have you respond as soon as possible. let me go back to the poultry rule if i can for a second.

it was brought to my attention in one of your comments was about the last time we did chickin inspections, but the fact of the matter is beef slaughter inspection has not changed even longer period of time. but no hemp pilot in beef occurred because there was no industry takers to do the pilot. now in the area of performance standards on micro biological standard, microbial standards, i'm sorry, it's now voluntary for the producers. can we -- why can't we move to required standards on microbial testing instead of voluntary? one question i want to deal with and i'll ask a second one because my time is going to run out and i'm conscious of that,

but recently the center for the study of -- anyway, cspi, i've forgotten the -- science and the public interest, thank you, why does usda refuse to consider the multiple resistant salmonella as an a dull ter rant? the same way we do as e. coli 1057h7? you've got a 25 million per year to create an innovation center to study antibiotic resistance. i would like at some point if you can and maybe for the record because there isn't time now to let us know about the petition that cspi put together and the questions that they have asked and if we could get an answer to those questions.

voluntary versus -- >> actually, i think to a certain extent the questions are in a sense one and the same in this respect. there is a difference between our jurisdiction and capacity relative to beef and e. coli and poultry and salmonella. it's based on what you're asking to us do and we were told by the court that we did not have the authority or the jurisdiction to do that. so, as a result, we have been looking at ways in which we can improve efforts at reducing salmonella. we've initiated salmonella performance standards that are enhanced and for the first time came up with bacterial standards. we are proposing to enhance our sampling to intensify testing and to potentially post facilities that have inadequate results from these tests, and as

you point out, we are trying to have an innovation institute that really focuses on this issue. >> but we can't require microbial standards to be -- >> i have been told -- >> you have performance standards. they are going to come up with their own performance standards that may or may not coincide with your performance standards. >> we have performance standards that say there are certain levels of the -- the reality of the biology of food production is there are certain levels that can't be avoided and have to be dealt with in other ways. we have been very aggressive on e. coli because we believe we have the jurisdictional power to do that. we have been able to, for example, expand the number of adult ter rants. we've been focused on beef trim and all of that stuff so i think a lot of this has to do with how courts have perceived our jurisdiction and our resource

and our power. >> have you asked for the authority? can you ask for the authority? ask us for the authority. >> well, we've attempted to exercise the authority and courts have basically told us, can't do it. >> ask us for the authority. >> well -- >> i'm serious. >> i didn't realize -- >> supreme court just dealt with led better, etc. advance versus ball state. we turned that around in congress. we have legislation here we can deal with these issues. ask for the authority. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, just to maybe return to points that my good colleague from connecticut raised, i think the point of our dialogue was that there was a compromise that was struck in the bill that would reduce commodity programs for farmers by 7% and reduce snap program by 1%. some people thought that was lopsided.

my only point that i'm trying to make, sir, to drive that home is that at least the 1% that is out of the snap program, that is merely an agreed to point, it should be fixed and it would save $8 billion and that would be the agreement. we'll leave that and i'll say support of farmers and support of the agriculture community is a long standing tradition of this congress and this country and without a healthy, vibrant agriculture community, without healthy, vibrant farmers there is no food in the grocery store for people to buy or for snap beneficiaries to purchase and so i think we need to be mindful. the 7% reduction, i would be hard-pressed to find any other program that's been reduced in that amount and farmers have been noble and to give up payments in a time in which we don't know what the future of agriculture brings in terms of the economy going forward and it

can be some tough times. we've all been through tough times. in farming would he have to ensure we have a vibrant agricultural community. now i have a couple follow-up -- or a couple i guess unrelated questions to that topic. i want to ask you a little bit about the lesser prey chicken. i would like to ask you about the partial irrigation ability to use crop insurance. clearly farmers deal with a lot of epa regulations, they deal with a lot of bureaucracy and mandates and things that drive up the cost of doing business that makes food more expensive in the grocery store, that makes it harder in this country to have an affordable food supply. you have a farming community that is successful and produces affordable food. one particular air kbra that is troubling a lot of kansas farmers is that the fish and wildlife service is prepared to issue a ruling on the endangered species status of the lesser prey chicken on or before march

31st. as you know this will impact a large portion of western and southern kansans. is there anything we can do to lessen the cost and burden and expense that may occur if this is listed and will folks who are enflold crp after march 31st still be able to take up the contracts? >> senator, we have been very much engaged in discusses with the fish and wildlife service issues relating to not just the lesser prey chicken but sage grouse and other endangered species that could be listed. in fact, i think there's seven specific species that we are working with the department of interior on. one thing that we are attempting to do is to create what we refer to in our shop as regulatory certainty. the reality is the biggest concern that a lot of producers have is once they've taken

certain steps can they be assured that those steps are all they will be asked to do. so we have instituted a program with the department of interior where we use our conservation resources and develop a suite of conservation practices and in exchange for embracing those conservation practices and using our cost share programs, producers are guaranteed a certain level of certainty that if and when a particular species is listed they will have to do no further actions relative to that listing. we've done this in sage grouse and it's been particularly effective and we are currently doing this with, as i say, six other endangered species including prey chicken. we are continuing to look at ways we can provide assistance and help hopefully to avoid the listing if that occurs and if the department of interior makes the decision for it to be listed to assist landowners with the costs and cost share of any steps that they need to take in

order to protect themselves from that listing. we'll do everything we can to educate our sister agency from the impact and do everything we can to mitigate its impact if and when it's listed. >> what about the crp program in terms of folks that are enrolled after march 31st, will they still be able to take up those contracts? >> i'm he going to have to -- i don't know the answer on that question. >> if you would permit me, i've got some constituents inquiring on that. >> i will certainly get back to you on that. >> another issue on crop insurance. you can have an irrigated crop insurance program or a non-irrigated program. just quickly, mr. chairman, did the department look into a partially irrigated system? because we've got farmers who are not fully irrigating because of drought or irrigation reduction programs and so they're not qualifying for the irrigation program but they're not really a dry land program either. >> currently there are a small

group of farmers who have individual written agreements providing that protection. part of the problem is it's been hard getting the data that would help us be actuarial sound and be a legitimate insurance product, but with the experience we're having with the individual agreements we hope to get to a point and obviously when and if we get the foundation, we will look at that. there is also within the farm bill an opportunity for us to take a look at irrigated and unirrigated policies. >> mr. farr. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to shift to an issue on food for peace. i'm a return peace corps volunteer and certainly interested in the food for peace program. i've seen in the years since i've returned from the peace corps a real shift in the world's ability to deal with

food delivery. what we've essentially had is a feeding program to help impoverished areas. it's been odd. we brought it to the united states on our flag carriers all the way to these foreign countries and the new effort is to try to, as we are domestically, trying to empower host country nationals to develop their own ability to have a viable agrarian economy. i recently got back with some members of congress from ethiopia which is one of the strongest countries in latin america, biggest and most populated and strategically necessary for the world security because it's positioned in the horn of africa. ethiopia is a huge agrarian country. we have a lot of programs there, including peace corps. but what shocked me is we're still all aiding about $800

million a year to that one country because they can't even feed themselves. a lot of that is food aid. you mentioned in your opening statement that you're asking authority to use up to 25% of the total account to increase the flexibility in emergency aid for complex prices, specifically within regional purchases and cash vouchers and cash transfers. the budget justification states that this authority would allow usaid to reach up to 2 million more people in challenging emergency situations such as we've seen with the internal and external displacement of people in syria and sudan and i'm just wondering if you could clarify for us how these increases in flexibility of title 2 funds would allow you to reach more people. >> well, it's pretty simple,

congressman. it basically is less expensive when you do it in country and you actually can get the relief to people a lot quicker. under our current system it can take anywhere from 10 to 14 additional weeks to get relief to people who are obviously in need immediately and we can substantially reduce the time and the cost with that 25% which in turn would allow us to buy more food and get that food to people. >> is that triggered with ability to -- i mean, ethiopia's struggling to be able to better have yields, to have -- obviously they're in the coffee business now and starbucks has done a great job of sort of helping them build their infrastructure to have an international coffee market, coffee exchange. so are we working with these countries that we're distributing this food in so that they can build capacity? >> that's -- there are two aspects to that question. one is within the food for peace program there's roughly $270 million that's used for

additional development to sort of mature the agriculture that exists in the country and then our feed the future initiative, which is an effort on the part of our foreign ag service, essentially is helping to train tens of thousands of producers in africa and in developing countries to be better farmers. we don't see this as a competitive situation, we see this as complimenting american agriculture. if you actually strengthen agriculture in developing countries, you create larger and larger middle classes. those larger and larger middle classes are encouraged in producing value added processes in this country. we think it's an appropriate way to use resources. >> we had some resistance obviously fwi commodity groups and by flag shippers and unions and so on. have you been able to work your

way with the i.d. and alleviating some of those concerns? >> we've trying to transfer jurisdiction and responsibility to usaid. we try to engage our union friends and shipping friends and producers to make sure that they know there's still a substantial amount of quantity that's produced in america, shipped by americans and it hires organized labor folks to load it and to provide it. so our hope is that we've approached this a little more effectively this year than last year. >> i support it on one condition, and that is that you stay in charge of it. what happens with the usaid and that's in another appropriations committee, but that money gets into that 150 account and it's consumed by all the other competitors of that account. you lods tse the ability and i

applaud your effort to maintain control of it. >> i'm assured of this job today. i don't know about tomorrow. >> thank you. >> mr. mitchell. >> thank you very much. let me first go back to mr. fortenberry who talked about his amendment in connection with our discussion about actively engaged. i just wanted to point out that i voted against his amendment because there's a difference between actively engaged, that issue, and payment limitations. those are two separate issues, and i think the conference committee was probably more thoughtful and better informed in recognizing that different regions of the country, like in the southeast, have different needs with regard to the amount. i think it was a specific amount of payment limitations that was the problem because in the southeast they have farmers who have multiple crops and that

definitely impacts when there's a lower payment limitation. i just wanted to point that out. but i wanted to go back, mr. secretary, and i think last year you and i discussed what i think is one of the most creative initiatives undertaken under your tenure at the department and that's the strike force initiative. the strike force initiative introduced in 2010 is one of the tools that usda is using to combat poverty on projects to promote economic development and job creation. i'd like to just put on your radar screen the 10, 20, 30 concept which has been put out in connection with an overall attack on poverty trying to assure that 10% of the resources can be utilized on communities

that have had 20% sustained poverty over a 30-year period, using that as a metric for trying to allocate services. several people have been targeted to participate in a strike force initiative. it's been reviewed as a refreshing and appropriate resource. to reach out to communities that have not benefitted from the department's programs. can you give us an update on where the program stands today and your vision for the future. >> congress, thank you very much for asking the question about rural poverty because i think it's an area that is often not talked about and discussed in this country and unfortunately we see extraordinarily high and consistent poverty in america. higher than it is in other parts of the country. it directly impacts children in a very serious way. strike force is now operating in

700 counties in 20 states and travel areas. as a result of strike force, we've seen increased participation in farm loan programs, we've seen increased participation in farm loan programs, more housing opportunities created and we've seen a market increase in the number of summer feeding opportunities that exist in rural areas. there is still a great deal of work to do. we've gone in a slightly different direction as it relates to your 10-20-30 program. we have a 20-2016 program. 20% of our rural development would be invested in areas where there is a census track of 20% poverty or greater and we want to reach that goal by 2016. as of today i think we're in -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 18.5% or so of our resources

being invested in those areas and i am confident we will get to the 20-20 by 2016. after that maybe we can look at additional challenges. this issue of rural poverty is part of a larger concern that i have with -- just if i can have 30 seconds, mr. chairman. three major factors about rural america. one, highest poverty rate in 25 years. two, despite the fact that we've had job growth in this country in the last four years, little of it has actually been seen in rural areas. we're just holding our own. and, three, for the first time in the history of this country we actually saw reduced numbers of people living in rural areas, and part of it has to do with what's happening in agriculture, we have increased number ever

very small organizations. we have to figure out ways to provide market opportunities for those in the middle which is back to the congresswoman's questions about local and regional food systems. that is one strategy for doing that. we have to look at ways to use conservation, rural development resources and the local and regional food system to create opportunities in order to keep our kids in those areas and to reverse some of those trends. >> may i just ask one unrelated question? >> real quickly please. >> can you give us some idea for the fsa droerktor's position that's vacant in georgia of when we can expect to get a director? it's been vacant for some time. >> congressman, i don't know the answer to that question specifically, but we will get you an answer by the end of tod today. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. thank you again, mr. secretary. you've put in a long morning and

afternoon with us, and i won't drag out the pain too much longer, but i do concur a lot of my colleagues have asked many of the things that i wanted to talk about so i appreciate them bringing so many things up. i've just got one and i'm sure it's yet another one of your favorite topics. that is around gmos. maine just recently became the second state in the country to pass a law requiring the labeling of genetically modified ingredients in foods. just as an aside, i would say this was a republican sponsored bill passed by democratic legislature signed by a republican governor. i think i can say maine's call for action konls from people who want to know what's in their food as well as farmers that are concerned about the contamination of their crops by genetically modified crops in the area. so could you just give me a

quick update on the activities of ac 21, your working group dedicated to farmers with genetically modified zplops and i'll throw in two questions. is there funding for ac 21 in your budget and has the department been hearing the concerns of those farmers and consumers? >> the ac 21 committee was a balanced group of folks who were supportive of gmos. folks who are conventional producers and folks who are professionals involved in all aspects of this. there were a couple of recommendations from ac 21. one is taking a look at crop insurance programs to determine whether or not we can do a better job of doing a better job for crop producers. the result has been, number one, the elimination of the surcharge on organic products. number two, an expansion of the number of products available.

i think there are now over 350 policies that are sold for roughly 130 crops and, number three, better pricing of organic crop insurance in terms of price election. the challenge with organic is that it may be the result of a contract, it may not be the result of a market in the same way that basic commodities are so we had to basically begin to make an adjustment of how we might be able to compensate folks for damage. that's one thing. secondly, there was deep concern about the importance of keeping and maintaining the quality of regenerate should there be an event or incident. that prompted us to take a look at our own storage and seed bank capacity to do a better job of maintaining, testing and examining the seed banks to make sure we continue to maintain adequate supplies and that they haven't been contaminated or impacted in any way.

number three, you know, working on ways in which we can provide better information concerning stewardship responsibilities in terms of knowing what your neighbor's planting, knowing how what you may do may impact potentially your neighbor and the value that's -- the high val added opportunity that organic promotes and provides. number three -- or number four i think there was a concerted effort to increase our research budget and to make sure that our conservation resources were being made more available. so there's been a concerted effort in ac 21 to continue to focus on these issues. the labeling issue is a challenging one because historically our labeling has been for either nutrition or because of a known hazard or something that requires a warning. i think it's fair to say that this isn't about nutrition and at least from my perspective,

it's not about any kind i have safety hazard. this is more about consumers' right to know. candidly i think the debate is a 20th century debate in the 21st century. there was mention of bar codes and other ways, necessarilies in europe is currently using a ur code. it could be something like a bar code that would allow folks with smartphone or the ability in grocery stores to have reading devices that would allow folks to have all the information they need and want about a product without necessarily creating a label that might accepted the wrong message about the safety of the product. we are engaged with the fda in discussions how we might be able to promote such a concept and idea. so we're trying to be informative in this space. it would be difficult if you're going to end up with 50 different standards, that's going to create serious challenges in the marketplace in terms of which states require

what labels and what does the label look like and where does it go. i'm sure there's going to be litigation for quite some time. i'm trying to figure out, is there a third way to do this? i think technology may be the answer. >> i'm definitely out of time. but i'm sure i'll get a chance to follow-up. thank you for your answers. >> thank you, mr. secretary, for spending the last three hours with us. we're glad to have you here today also as well as mr. young, thank you for being here, as well. we look forward to following up on some of these things we discussed today and all the best to you at usda and the subcommittee is adjourned. >> thank you.

>> on the next washington journal alex smith chair of the college republican national committee and natasha mckenzie discuss a new pole profiling mill len y'all in adulthood. joshua landis talks about serious, the effectiveness of u.s. policy. and josh describes his field experiment to test whether the offices of members of congress are more likely to grant access to contributors. we'll take your call and you can join the conversation on facebook as well. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> the tenets that are applicable are the fact that whatever we do in the cyber arena, international law will pertain that if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe that cyber is taking us down our armed conflict scenario that the rules and the law of armed conflict will pertain in this domain as it does in any other. i don't think cyber is inherently different in that regard. i think those sets of procedures, those sets of policy and law as a nation have stood us in good step. >> this weekend on c-span, senate armed services takes up

intelligence and military nominations, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. and on book tv. amy parents and jonathan allen take a look at hillary clinton's career since her defeat. on c-span 3, american history from march 1964, poet and novelist robert penn warren interviews martin luther king jr. sat at 7:00 and 11:00. >> two weeks ago in the midst of a terrible tragedy on the potomac, we saw again the spirit of american heroism at its finest, rescue workers saving crash victims from icy waters and we saw the heroism of one of our government employees lenny scotty who when he saw a woman lose her grip, dived into the water and

dragged her to safety. [applause] >> find more highlights of 35 years of floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider.

>> good afternoon. everybody ready? we're going to have some folks who will move out at 5:00 on i think it's a hearing on ukraine. we're ready to start. we welcome secretary johnson for what marks his very first appearance with the subcommittee. thank you for being here. looking forward to your testimony and we're going to talk about the president's budget request for homeland security for fiscal year 2015. you well know documents that reflect the administration's priorities. so when we look at your budget a blatant r fy-15 is disregard for security and prioritys that truly define logic. either this administration does

not see homeland security and law enforcement as important or is it trying to gain congress nd hope we will bail out unjustified and truly harmful cuts to essential front line operations. either way, the chairman of this subcommittee, i'm obligated to call you on it and not to tolerate it. we all know political election year budget proposal when we see one. i'm afraid that that's what we've got here today. specifically your budget proposes a 12% cut in air and marine operation which includes a cut of more than 30 flight hours. it proposes a cut of 5% to ice which includes a $30 million cut and investigations and a $3,500 in nearly

detention beds space. a cut of more than 4% of the coast guard including a cut of nearly 30% to critical acquisitions and a cut of more than 17% to fix wing flight hours. so what we have here is a budget proposal that if ever enacted will result in more drugs on our streets, more encouragements, including more instances of human smuggling about trafficking as well as child exploitation, an outcome simply unacceptable. then this budget proposes to actually increase the spending of the manage increase by nearly 3%. the budget proposes about a billion dollars in new fees that are not even authorized. so your budget assumes enormous

off-sets that simply do not exist. the includes a costly political program that does notted a hire to the ryan murray plan in accidental law just months ago and that has no plan and no justification. the so-called opportunity growth and security initiative is a little more than a political wish list that has been presented to congress and o this committee and in an inadequate way. finally your budget does not comply with the lie as it is missing some 20 reports, a plan to be required with the budget. this is an argument that we have had especially with homeland for years. is is how we are able to understand your budget to provide these 20 some-odd

reports is inexcusable. frankly it's offensive, late and incomplete do not comply with the law for budget submitals. we deal in matters of reality meaning we enforce the law as it is written not how we would like it to be. how we only deal with laws an off-sets that are real, not some false orphicity shouse fee. -- or fictitious fee. that's why the subcommittee has to submit to three core principles. we've done that since roger was in charge an has been carried out for three years. one, unwaivering support to personnel and ensrble security operations. two, clear alignment of funding to results. and three, true fiscal discipline meaning we provide every well justified dollar

needed for homeland security and not one penny more. this is a common sense policy. mr. secretary, we know you're knew. i know you're inherented an ill-conceived budget. so we'll work with you in the coming months. lord know we can only approve the so-called proposal and i give you my word that i work with you to do that. mr. secretary, i think it's clear we have a lot to cover here today before i recognize you on your testimony, let me turn to my friend the distinguished ranking member and former chairman mr. price for his remarks. >> thank you, mr. chame. good morning, good afternoon mr. secretary. this is your first appearance before our subcommittee, your first opportunity to answer questions on the fiscal year 2015 budget request from the president. i hope you'll find our hear togs be constructive and beneficial to your mission as

the secretary. the subcommittee's inclined to be candid and probing but i hope our questions will be fair and reasonable. you have a difficult job so even when there are difficult jobs we respect your service to country and look forward to working together. you've inherented a company that's more than 10 years old but it's made significant progress under the leadership of each of your spread saysors. your intent is to build on and hasten that progress. one area that is in dire need is the morale of the personnel which ranks from the lowest. i know from our conversations that that's a priority for you and i look forward to hearing more about your strategy not only to address it but to continue to build the department and to one d.h.s. part of the morale problem has to do with the extended cancies among multiple

offices. we've seen some progress in that front including three important confirmations last week. but for many, the department or the administration was slow to act. so i hope you give us a feel for when we might see all these vacancies feel. you need long time leader components to help you do your job effectively. i've been impressed with the strides made using risk based strategies to prioritize the use of risk base screening by t.s.a. and prioritizing criminal alien deportations by ice, to improve targeting of passengers and carbo. he department's is taking more strategic approach to accomplish its missions. that approach is needed now as we continue to live in an era of fiscal constraint. the fiscal budget is $38.2 not

including an additional $6.2. t this total is $1.1 billion below the funding level. of course, d.h.s. isn't the only department of being asked to do more with less. in fact, other departments are far worse off. while i'm hopeful that we can move forward in a bipartisan manner based on the top line fiscal 15 numbers, this agreement will still leave short falls across our federal udget and funding for research plans, infrastructure plans and much beyond that. now, some are going to be quick to criticize the homeland security budget request. but we need to realize it's part of a bigger picture that indemrudes the recent past government shutdowns, destructive sequestration cut, unwise cuts in critical

domestic investments. so this history has left the administration with severely limited options. there is perhaps no greater challenge than border and immigration enforcement. this is not only because of the fact that the immigration system is fundamentally flawed but also because the politics are so contentious, plagued i'm afraid bim exaggerations by fact and rhetoric. my experience on this subcommittee has convinced me of the futility of approaching immigration as simply an enforcement issue or simply throwing money at the border or any other aspect of the problem. we must have comprehensive reform, in fact, we should have had it long ago. if you could accomplish that, that would go farther than anything else i can think of to make your job more managementable and your department more successful. one of the things that the subcommittee would benefit

greatly from and would help clear the air would be more comprehensive and timely data about the department and immigration enforcement responsibilities. how many individuals are being apprehended. where do they fit into the department's enforcement priorities? how many meet the criteria? how many are put on alternatives detention or some other form of detention in which priority levels fit into? we need to have more confidence that our detention resources are used for those who are threats in the community or are serious flight risks? and we need toe know that our a.t.d. programs work effectively as the detention alternative. >> better information may not be the way to reach consensus on every question on border and immigration enforcement policy. but it would elevate the discussion based on impir can evidence and data. with regard to the policy,

there's been a deabout ices use of prosecutorial discretion. but the use of low enforcement system. n has a long on which case is to pursue and to what extent. any prosecutor not exercising this is dirthroket his or her taxpayer -- is dir elect to his or her taxpayer. we simply must prioritize. a convicted felon has committed a more serious crime than a misdemeanor offender and therefore poses a bigger risk to the public. we simply don't have the resources to do it all. now on the specific budget proposal there are some recycled proposals that i was hoping we wouldn't see again. i want to register any concern

with fema and to the coast guards' acquisition budget. both of those accounts represent important investment in homeland security capabilities that we can't shortchange. i'm weary of the pro-posed transfer for the emergency of and food o and shelter program from fema. that idea has been proposed and rejected in the fast because the stakeholder community simply didn't support the change. i look forward to your testimony, our discussion today. look forward to continuing to work with you this year in support of your department's important missions. thank you, plch. -- mr. chairman. >> your entire written statement will be written into the record. you're now identified for five minutes. i'm sorry i should have asked from my chairman if he had an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary for being here. on your first appearance before

the committee. in the past several years, ranking member lloyd along with our counter parts across the capital have worked hand in hand to restore regular order to this committee, thoughtful oversight and austerity. the omnibus bill for fiscal year 2014 which we agreed upon on in january is truly emblematic of that commitment making responsible choices to target precious tax dollars whether it need it the most. that bill was a true product of coming together, reflecting our shared desire to roll up our sleeves, cast partisan to the wayside and do the critical work expected of this storied committee. all of us are committed to moving forward in a similar

fashion in fiscal year 2015. with honest and fair negotiations. that is why i'm disappointed that we're here today to review a budget request that as chairman carter has pointed out is overtly partisan and political at its core. the protection of our homeland is a responsibility of paramount importance. nd i fear this budge request undermines this one. unauthorized legislative proposal that we have sadly come to expect. mr. secretary, we've got to do better. once again the department has proposed to significantly reduce coast guard and ice that supports the men and women who bravely defend our homeland on the front lines.

in particular the budget would decrease custody operations. by $202 million and domestic investigations by $27.7 million. in addition to reduce the mandated detention level by over 10%. another strong signal that this administration is not interested in enforcing the immigration laws on the books in this country. this budget cuts over 500 military and civilian personnel at the coast guard, 500. when the attorney general is describing the uptick in her winn abuse in our country he -- heroine he says it's an urgent crisis. i'm using his words. i don't see the wisdom in reducing our front lines of defense against heroin drug trafficking. rely on $1 ey

user n to mument pull cbb fees and passenger fees to support critical security measures. once again the department has proposed a new fema grant program that has not formerly submitted to or vetted by the right committees of the congress. once again the department has failed to submit a number of plans and reports which are essential to help this committee do its work and do its work well. these are not merely suggestions or requests. they're required by law. i could go on, mr. secretary, and i may later. the bottom line is this, we've got to do better. your testimony today i hope will lay my concern as we work together in protecting our

homeland. i thank the chairman. >> thank you, plch, i'm sorry about that. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome mr.secretary. i would like to thank chairman rogers, ranking member price, this subcommittee values our role in protecting the homeland as well as the bipartisan working relationship we fostered to meet that goal. mr. secretary, as you appear before the house appropriations committee for the first time, i welcome you. last year there were acts of terror in boston, growing cyber attacks on american businesses and drug cartel violence along the u.s.-mexican border that has resulted in the murder of 60,000 people since 2006. and turned some border towns into a war zone. these challenges alone certainly make an extremely

difficult job and yet you oversee 16 different agencies and offices which is no small fete. i wish you luck. stand ready to work with you to provide our first responders, border patrol officers, special agents and every federal law enforcement officer with the resources to keep our country safe. the president's budget yet again proposes to consolidate fema state and local grants into a large pot without and rization from congress express wishes against this committee. it could dilute terrorism funds from areas most at risk of attack and leave transit and port security in the nation's most densely populated areas without the ability to prevent

and respond to acts of terrorists. in addition the department's assumption that the job is complete new york city is premature and a reduction in securing the city funding could leave new york city 2002 radiological and nuclear detection capabilities it needs. with that said, i commend the president for his efforts to put americans back to work while making investments that will support our infrastructure. the opportunity, growth and security initiative if implemented would provide $400 million for prehazard, mitigation assistance with natural disasters becoming more frequent, severe and costly these investments would be a worthy investment if our resiliency and infrastructure. lastly, every day the best and

brightest come to america to study and work. and then due to our broken mmigration system we term home to compete against us in a local market. this makes no sense. all agree that every day without comprehensive immigration reform is a missed opportunity. i hope that the house will take up hr-15 nearly i'd dool the senate bill that passed with bipartisan support and that when you come before us next year, we will discuss how the president's f.y.-16 budget meets the implementation needs of this important legislation. thank you, mr. second tamplete -- mr. secretary. >> ok. sorry for the mix-up. you're now recognized secretary for your statement. >> thank you.

>> thank you. [ inaudible ] there we go. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ranking member price. ranking member lowy, who i've known for some years. i want to begin by thanking the subcommittee. you have my prepared statement. for the record, i will read an abbreviated version of it. i would like to thank the subcommittee for the strong support you have provided to the department for the past 11 years. i look forward to continuing to work with you in the coming year to protect the homeland and the american people. i am pleased to appear before the subcommittee to present the president's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the department. the 2015 budget request builds on our accomplishments over the past 11 years, while providing essential support to national

and economic security. the basic missions of dhs are and should be preventing terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing our borders, enforcing and administering our immigration laws, safeguarding and securing cyberspace and strengthening national preparedness and resilience. the president's fy-'15 budget request provides the resources necessary, in our judgment, to maintain and strengthen our efforts in each of these critical mission areas. in all, the fy-'15 budget request, $60.9 billion in total budget authority, $49 billion in gross discretionary funding and $38.2 billion in net discretionary funding. of particular note, the president's budget request funds production of the national security cutter eight as part of the recapitalization of the

coast guard and requests $300 million to complete the funding necessary to construct the national bio and ago row defense facility, state-of-the-art facility central to the protection of the nation's food supply and security. the fy-'15 budget will provide $10.2 billion to support disaster resiliency, primarily through the grants program administered by fema and the disaster relief fund. i'd like to also mention something about vacancies. there has been a lot of discussion of vacancies within the senior levels of the department. i'm pleased that the senate last week acted on the confirmations of suzanne spalding, gill kerr could you ski to lead cbp and john roth to be our new inspector general. we have three more that are awaiting senate confirmation now, and i would like to report that with respect to the other senior leaders, i have in mind at least one individual that we are recruiting at every one of these levels.

this is an active part of my responsibility as secretary to fill these leadership positions. i spend virtually some part of every day working on this important mandate. as secretary, i am also mindful of the environment in which we pursue each of our important missions. the days are over when those of us in national and homeland security can expect more and more to be added each year to our top line budgets. i therefore believe, as i know many members of this committee believe, i am obligated to identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste and unnecessary duplication of resources across dhs's large and decentralized bureaucracy, while pursuing important missions, such as the recapitalization of the aging coast guard fleet. we reached a major milestone last year when the department achieved its first unqualified or clean audit opinion on its financial reporting. these are important steps in maturing the department's management and oversight functions. but there is more to do.

as part of the agenda, we are tackling our budget structure and process. dhs currently has 76 appropriations over 120 projects, programs or activities. and there are significant structural inconsistencies across components, making mission-based budget planning and budget execution analysis difficult. we are making changes, as i have discussed with members of the committee, to our budget process to better focus our efforts on a mission and cross component view. i along with the deputy secretary am personally engaged to provide the necessary leadership and direction to this process. as part of a management reform agenda, i am also doing a top to bottom review of our acquisition governance process from how we develop our strategies to the development of our requirements to how we sustain our platforms, equipment and people and everything in between. part of this will include the thoughtful but necessary consolidation of functions to provide the department with the

proper oversight, management and responsibilities to carry out this task. this will allow dhs to more fully ensure the solutions we pursue are responsive to our strategy, it technological -- technologically mature and cost-effective. i look forward to sharing our ideas and strategies with this subcommittee as we move forward in this area. the last thing i'd like to comment on is -- a comment was made that i'm new. last -- week before last at -- in my testimony before the house homeland committee, a member remarked, "we know you inherited this, but when youin herrit something, you own it." so i accept responsibility for the department and its budget submission. someone has got to be responsible, and that's me. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> well, thank you. and i appreciate that comment.

you know, in the past four months, cvp has apprehended 66,928 illegal entrants into the rio grand valley sector of our border. rio grand valley is in texas. we call it "the valley." policies, procedures and adjudication backlog resulted in many of these illegal immigrants staying in the united states for an indeterminant period of time, which is leading to a de facto catch and release policy. mr. secretary, in a yes or no answer, first, has the administration regressed to the flawed cap -- catch and release policy of our past history? what do you think? do you know if the effects of

this has established a catch and release policy for our administration? >> i do not believe so, and i would be opposed to such a policy. i know from my experience at the department of defense that an armed force of, a law enforcement force, has serious objections to a catch and release policy. we ask these people to put their own lives on the line, and if you do that, you should not catch, capture or arrest someone only to be released moments later. so i do not believe in such a policy. and i don't believe we have such a policy. >> well, let's just look at some things. we have a combination of government directives, deferred action, rule interpretation and a proposed budget -- when proposed budget cuts leading to a de facto cut and release policy. aren't all these regarding illegal activity such a thing by granting the recent border entrants with temporary status, even if it's a type of legal

limbo, aren't -- and aren't the white house decisions, including the latest proposal to slash i.c.e. enforcement resources, creating irrational posture for illegal entry that is leading to humanitarian dilemmas and law enforcement nightmares. sir, i'm from texas. and as you know that, we have talked. so illegal border crossings are a big deal to me. to my neighbors. and, you know, we all know what's going on in the rio grand valley. your group called that the rgv. we call it "the valley." and though we worry about the flow of illegal aliens streaming into our neighborhoods and communities, we worry more about transnational criminal network that supports these illegal crossings. the word on the border is, at least across from texas, is today no one crosses that river without the cartel being involved.

sir, these statistics from cvp about apprehension and the rio grand valley for the first quarter of fiscal year 2014, between october and january. october, december -- four months. as i said, 66,828 people were apprehended. a total of 49,815 were new, were other than mexicans. and 18,555 were juvenile apprehensions. when these folks are apprehended, they met i.c.e.'s mandatory detention criteria, because they were recent illegal entrants. but needless to say, they weren't all placed in detention beds. so what happened to them once they were processed by cbp and turned over to i.c.e.? of the 66,928, how many were removed from detention, placed in alternative detention,

claimed credible, or waiting immigration hearings? how many other mexicans waiting to be deported? we can't just ship them back to mexico. of the 18,555 children, how many were delivered to family members living legally or illegally in the united states, and how many children continue to wait in shelters if they couldn't be reunited to family members? there's no doubt, mr. secretary, in my opinion, at least, there's no doubt the current policies are causing systematic failures to the united states immigration enforcement process. creating, i would argue, an invitational posture that is leading to a humanitarian crisis. it's a really sad story to hear, and we hear it on the border all of the time. of a small child dropped across the bridge in brownsville, with a plan that is instigated by the

cartel, there is nothing to worry about that small child. it will be delivered by i.c.e. to agents flying into a company -- to a family in virginia. now, this whole policy has created a disaster at our border. aren't what our policies we're establishing. would you consider this might be creating incentives to bad behavior? and what's your solution? >> a couple of comments. first, i've been to the valley. i spent time there. i've done the rio grand, and i've talked to our border patrol agents on the front lines about the challenges they face and what they need, the resources they need. because i know from personal experience very often you learn more from talking to the people on the front lines than you do

your subordinates in washington. in fact when i went to the valley, i told my subordinates in washington to stay home. i wanted to talk directly to the guys on front line. i agree that we've got some real challenges in south texas. i think south texas, particularly, of late, is presenting some real challenges, and we've got some work to do there. one of the things that i was struck by when i visited the detention center on january 20th, there were 995 detainees there, only 18% of whom were mexican. there were something like 30 nationalities represented in that one detention center. and it's very clear why. smuggling organizations are bringing these individuals through mexico, into the united states as part of a plan. so one of my concerns, one of my challenges, is i think we have to be very aggressive when it comes to going after the

organizations. some of whom are beholden to the cartels. many of whom are beholden to the cartels. almost no one crosses the south texas border who is not being smuggled. there is no freelancing. it's all part of an organized process put in place. i am also sensitive to aspects of our system that may create magnets for illegal immigration. i am sensitive to that. and when i was on the front lines, i talked to our border patrol folks about some of the stresses that they face on the front lines as a result of the system we have in place. in my judgment, this is one of the reasons why we need comprehensive immigration reform. both for the added border security that it would provide and, frankly, for -- and i know some people disagree with this. but i think i'm right on this. as a matter of homeland security, an earned path to citizenship for the 11 million

who were here, he want them to come out of the shadows so we know who they are, as a matter of homeland security. but chairman, i am sensitive to the challenges the people on the front lines face. i think in south texas and the valley, we've got some work there to do, in particular. the last thing i would say is, there's a difference between catch and release and apprehension, arrest and, you know this yourself from your time in the judiciary, and someone being released on parole, on bond, because someone has determined that they're not a flight risk. and that does indeed happen in our immigration system. and we have asked for $94 million for an alternative to detention program that we think is a pretty good one, consistent with public safety.

>> well, you sort of confirmed in some ways what i just said about an invitational posture, and i thank you for your comments. and we -- when we had catch and release, i interviewed bondsmen. and the policy that they had was, they would make the bond, but they were before the judge getting off the bond in a month, because they knew the no-shows were going to be 90%. and they were playing -- they were gaming the system. this is way back in '04 when we had catch and release was a policy of the united states. but i need to go on to mr. price. so i'll get my time again. mr. price? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, as you know, on this subcommittee we've worked very hard to be full partners with our first responders. and with our state and local governments. to fully fund fema's first responder program. i'm disappointed that this

budget does propose a reduction in these programs, although i note that the administration has also proposed the opportunity of growth and security initiative. that includes additional funding or would include did additional funding for state and local grant, fully paid for. but it would be beyond the top line funding level in the budget agreement. now, in addition to the departments again proposal to establish a national preparedness grant program, which would take the place of the currently funded preparedness programs. that would include the state homeland security grand program, the urban area security initiative, the port security program and the transportation security grant program. in other words, the rail program. now, the administration, unlike the last two years, has proposed authorization language for this new mpgp. but the proposal is basically the same as we have seen in recent years. so i'm wondering if you could

elaborate for us the rationale for this proposal. and some of the practical effects. i'm especially interested in the practical effects. would the major urban areas, for example -- are they justified in their concern that they could lose access to significant amounts of funding under this restructuring? what would the cities gain or lose you said the proposed structure? would those cities need to rely solely on their state governments or more on their state governments to receive funding under the proposed structure? secondly, could you describe for me how changes have been made? what kind of changes you've made in response to some of the criticisms leveled by stakeholders to the proposal from prior years? thirdly, were the consolidated program to be authorized and funded, do you expect that we would see a is significantly different balance of investments than we have seen under the currently funded preparedness

grant programs? you see what i'm getting at. the -- these are programs that are important to us. they're important to you. i know. we want to fund them as generously as we possibly can. and we want to do this in a way that is effective and is as efficient as possible. this proposal keeps coming back, though. and we have resisted it, as you know very well. we have resisted it. we have reason to believe that the current grant structure is well-defined and has delivered important assistance. if you have a different idea or if you believe that the bottom line in terms of what's delivered and how it's utilized would be different and would be better under this kind of consolidation, then i think now is the time to let us know that rationale. because as i said, this promo --

this isn't the first time we have seen it. so if you're persisting in this, we obviously need to know the reason why. >> first of all, i was pleased that in the 14 budget agreement, there was more money set aside for state level and uwasi grants. i believe that assistance grant-making to state and local governments from my counterterrorism point of view is particularly important, as the terrorist threat becomes more diffuse, decentralized and in many instances, localized with the self radicalized individuals we see domestically. so i think support for state and local governments is particularly important, and i was pleased that in the '14 budget, we have more money to work with, and we intend to do so. i'm aware of the opposition of the consolidation of the grants program. i know that this debate has been going on, and i've asked the very same questions you have

just asked me. my understanding is that with the consolidation of the grants programs at the state level, there would be increased efficiencies in terms of federal oversight of how the grant money is spent, and increased efficiency on the state/local side in terms of oversight for how this money -- how the grant money is distributed. i know that our fema leadership and fema administers these grants, is a big believer in consolidating the grants program, and i have a tremendous amount of respect for craig fugate in this regard. and he believes that we need to do this. he administers this program, and i have to -- i'm inclined to defer to his judgment on this. i understand the concerns, but, you know, any time you are engaged in grant-making, if there is a way to reduce the overhead so that the grant money

is maximized in terms of getting to its maximum impact, that's a good thing. so that's why we -- that's why we come back at this. i'm pleased that this year we offered authorization language to accompany it. but that's my best understanding of the reason for the proposal. >> just one detail question about the authorization language. you propose authorization to build and sustain core capabilities identified to the national preparedness goal. now, i know you're maintaining the fire grants and the safer grants, personnel grants, as discrete programs. does this definition, though, include firefighting as one of those core capabilities? it is included now, as i understand. is that proposed to be changed? >> i have to take that question for the record. i can get back to you in writing, sir.

>> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, the country has an opioid problem. that's putting it mildly. until fairly recently, the abuse of prescription drug medicine was killing more people than car wrecks. opioid, oxycontin and the like. we have made a real dent in that through a concerteded action on the state, federal, local levels. and making some progress. that was what the center for disease control called a national epidemic. and i've been to too many emergency rooms in my district looking at young kids with parents grieving over the body of their son or daughter. 18, 19 years old.

we have made some progress on prescription drug abuse. but now they're switching to using heroin. an opioid, obviously. and the rise in heroin abuse now is what the attorney general yesterday called, quote, an urgent public health crisis, end quote. we all know that heroin is not made here. in the that heroin is not made here in the u.s. it has to be imported. it has to be brought in. either across our borders or seashores. and yet to combat this urgent public health crisis in your budget you proposed kutding the coast guard drastically the one

agency that can protect our shorelines against this invasion of a health crisis that we're ongoing. you cut over 800 military positions. over 600 selective reserves. you again gut the fast response cutter by funding only two even though the program is on cost and on schedule, desperately needed and your budget decimates operational flying hours by proposing to retire aircraft and cutting flying hours for the hc 144 aircraft by 16%. i could go on. on your cuts to the coast guard vital to our seashore defense,

particularly on drugs, we could talk about the land crossings the same way. the reduction in personnel and cuts to the land based law enforcement ice investigations, you are proposing to reduce the number of average sustained detention beds, for example, from 34,000 to 30,000. further more, ice's homeland security investigations program decreased nearly $30 million i could go on. is the attorney general wrong when he said yesterday this is an urgent national crisis? or do you maintain that the coast guard is not an important factor in that -- in fighting