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

that curse? >> i wholeheartedly agree with the attorney general with regard to his comment. the short answer to your question is that this budget submission reflects hard choices given our fiscally constrained environment in which we are operating pursuant to the bipartisan budget act and the top line limit that we face. with regard to the coast guard, i am personally committed to continuing with our recapitalization effort. my understanding is that the coast guard has the oldest fleet of vessels of any navy in the world. we need to continue our recapitalization effort. i am pleased that we have asked for $562 million to fund the national security cut number eight which is the last one in that production line. i am pleased that we are continuing progress towards the selection of a contractor for

the off shore patrol cutter, which is the medium sized cutter in the fleet and i am pleased that we have forward progress with regard to the smaller cutter. we asked for appropriations for two versus four or six because we had to make some hard choices. my observation is that they do a marvelous job in terms of narcotics intradiction. i think they are doing a terrific job and we need to encourage them to continue to do so. without a doubt this reflects some very hard choices. >> you have got to make choices. so do we. that's what we're in business

for. you and us on budgets. hard choices. and while you're cutting, the coast guard and other agencies that fight illegal drug trafficking, you're increasing management, administration. immigration and customs enforcement. almost 14% increase in administration. bureaucrats in washington. you cut domestic investigations by almost $30 million. and so on. so the hard choices, plus you propose to increase the amount of money to complete the dhs headquarters buildings.

hard choices. to me that's not a hard choice. that's an easy choice for me to make. i disagree with you on the hard choices, so called hard choices that you say you have made. that would put the coast guard at a five year low at cocaine introduction. and we all know that cocaine is flooding into our country. so mr. secretary, this is not good news for the home folks. before i relinquish my time here, let me ask about the federal air marshalls program. i know we can't talk about it in open court here too much.

just an analysis with where we are with the fam and whether or not we need them. >> mr. chairman, i'm happy to provide that report to you with suitable safeguards that i know we can trust you and your staff with the appropriate safeguards. i'm happy to provide that to you. >> anything that spends money we want to know about. >> i'm sorry? >> any program that spends money we want to know about, entitled to know about and demand to know about. i want a good analysis of it pretty quick, before we mark this bill up.

>> i'm not disagreeing with you. >> the statement accompanying the fiscal year included language directing the department to focus the urban area security initiatives on urban areas that are subject to the greatest terrorism as you know the purpose of this language rather than spread this money around from region to region and state to state, rather than put it to good use where it matters most. how does the department plan to implement this language for the

fy 14 ufc allocation and when can we expect the allocations under the more focused standard? >> i made an initial review last week and i believe we're on track to get that information out. i agree with the statement about how the grant money should be prioritize to the communities most at risk as someone who i appreciate the challenges that we in the new york area that and in other communities, so we expect to have that information for fy 14 out very soon. i have heard from enough members

of congress. i think it's incumbent upon me to make sure that we're allocating this in the proper way and that we occasionally re-evaluate it this city has been invaluable with raidlogical and nuclear detection capabilities to identify, respond to, and altogether prevent a raidlogical or nuclear attack on cities. could you discuss with me what accounts for the reduction? has the department coordinated with new york city's new chief of police to ensure that the

proposed reduction to securing the city's program would not harm the capabilities? >> i have a pretty good working relationship with the nypd and its leadership. i knew commissioner before i took this job it's my open and expectation that we can leverage this through other means and grant programs, again, it reflects our choices.

>> i hope that we will be able to discuss this with the new commissioner. i would like to discuss some matter of importance raegarding tsa. female tsos are finding it more difficult to be promoted rather than gaining experience at other stations. >> 33% of tsos are responsible for over 50% of all the pat downs. having female tsos conduct pat downs of female passengers is

certainly a well intentioned policy but i have heard continuing problems. they tell me they are not rotating positions per tsa policy because of insufficient number of tsos on duty at passenger check points. the result is the tsos are not getting the experience at other stations to be considered for promotion and being denied shifts because they are disproportionately being kept at the check points. could you discuss with us what steps should tsa take to ensure that female tsos have equal access to training, shift bids, promotions as their male counter parts and the tragic shooting at

lo los angeles international airport last year so if you can tell us what steps is tso taking to improve. >> i have not heard that before. but i am not surprised. if we want tsos who are women to conduct pat downs of women passengers who are probably about 50% and if you add kids, that's more than 50%. i wouldn't want to see male officers doing that with regard to women. that need, therefore, there is a

certain logic to your question requires that they be on the front lines of aviation security. i wouldn't want to see them deprived. i will look into that. that is an interesting comment which i had not heard from the women in the force who i have chatted with at lax and dulles and elsewhere. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i was there. i spoke with the officers, i asked them about their security. i don't think that the answer is to create a security perimeter around a public airport. i think that would create all kinds of backlogs. there is a review that is out that i'm due to get soon on promoting security for our officers and that's a top priori priority.

>> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. a point i want to quickly follow up on. remember over the years, identified a real problem with the ability of employees at airports to get access to identification documents and i hope you will continue to work on that. i noticed that in your background -- i'm trained as an attorney as well. i did civil defense work in houston defending businesses, individuals who got sued, and more. >> my last trial was in houston. >> was it really? >> yes. i won't tell you the result. >> well, you were the general council, i see, at the department of defense. >> yes. >> just as a point of curiosity, do you think that the individuals picked up by soldiers are entitled to constitutional protection? equal protection? protection guaranteed? >> that is is a very interesting question that we wrestled with

extensively. i will give you the current state of the case law. >> your opinion. >> my opinion? well, as a lawyer and legal advisor, my opinion is whatever the supreme court tells me to think. so the current state of the case law is that with regard to the right to habius, they have that. there has been no determination by the courts that detainees enjoy the full constitutional rights. the courts have tended to say we're not there yet. so that's the current state of the case law, it could go in that direction dparding on the particular issue. >> i agree with the comment made earlier which is i'm not in the business as enforcing the law as

i wish it existed i do the best as i believe it currently exists. >> when the law says shall, shall means shall. >> generally, that is true, yes, sir. >> since 2002 this committee has had in statute, a provision that chairman carter with strong support of chairman rodgers and the final bill that the president just signed provides this is in hr-3547, that funding made available under this bill shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds. and you're quite correct. adds the secretary so therefore if you could, what possible justification is there for the department of homeland security to refuse to obey that law and

why would you request to cut the detention beds by 10%? first of all, what is your legal justification for ignoring that law and not come plying with that shall? >> i dealt with similar provisions when i was the lawyer for the department of defense and the department of the air force when i was general council there. i believe that in the executive branch, we have a legal obligation to make a budget submission to congress. we owe the congress our best effort at what we think the budget priorities should be. >> recommendation. >> as a recommendation. and it is your prerogative to agree or disagree with it. i'm sure that the congress will do so in this instance as well. we believe we owe you our candor and our best effort at what we believe is the appropriate level for detention beds given our

current demands. that's what you have from the administration. >> right. but you're not filling all of those beds today. that's my concern. >> we're not filling all of those beds today. today, i believe, we are somewhere -- somewhere just shy of that. >> the law is mandatory? i agree. >> the clause reads as it reads. we have given you our best submission based on our honest assessment of what we think we need. >> sure. i can detect from the committee all of us on this committee are committed to enforcing the law as it is written. one of my nearest and dearest

friends. there is in one more committed to enforce the law than henry's constituents. they deal with it every day. they want safe streets and good school and a strong economy. and a beautiful city. you can't go there any more. it's like a ghost town. it's critical that you enforce the law as it is written. it is not as you said, what you would like the law to be. you're following the law as given to you by the united states congress. this is not optional or discretionary. there is no prosecution on the part of a police officer or your detention folks as to whether or not you will fill $34,000. you shall fill 34,000 beds. would you, if you could, please take that message back to the agency and i know that the chairman and all the sub

committee members will be keenly interested in helping you obey if law as it is written. thank you, sir. >> to comment on the bed mandate. as the law is written, and is being interpreted by my colleagues and saying that you must fill 34,000 beds, what that does, if i am correct, takes away the discretion of professional ice personnel who may determine that someone who is arrested could be an elderly person, whoever that happens to be allow them to put them in an

alternative means of detention because of health or other reasons if those 34,000 beds were not filled. so you would be in a position of having to fill those beds every night whether or not you believed a certain number of the people that were arrested could be put into an alternative situation. is -- is that how -- i mean the law is being interpreted by my colleagues? that the 34,000 beds have to be filled regardless of the merits or the need, the conditions of that person and that the discretion is taken away from ice professionals if that 34,000 number of beds is not filled? i'm just trying to understand the logic and how this law

applies here. it is very, very costly to have people in detention. it's something where $125 a night as opposed to i forget what the figure is, something like 30 cents per day to put them in alternative measures. so could you explain to me? >> well, i don't have the statute in front of me. i have no doubt it has the word shall in it. and i don't know that the interpretation here -- and feel free to disagree with me, is that we must maintain 34,000 detainees at any one time. it is that we must maintain the capability for 34,000 detainees but congressman you will correct me if i'm wrong. okay.

the other comment -- >> the capability is one thing. but if it's that you must fill them, that means that there is no discretion, those beds have to be filled every night regardless of who it is that you are arresting. that is what i'm asking for clarification. >> the language says funding shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through september 30, 2014. so, reading that, i would interpret that to mean that we have to maintain 34,000 detention beds. some of those beds might be empty at any given time but we have to maintain 34,000 detention beds. we believe that is not the best and highest use of our resources given our current estimates of who we need to detain, who we

regard as public safety, border security, threats. our best estimate is that the number is something south of 34,000, particularly when we have what we think is is a pretty good alternative to detention program that we have also asked for funding for. so we have asked for something to detain who we believe needs detained. >> your interpretation is different than previous interpretations that those beds do not have to be filled, they have to be available and the discretion as to whether or not to detain someone or put them into an alternative situation remains at the discretion of the ice professional? >> i'm reading the statute. >> the reason i'm asking is because i think there is a

disagreement. >> correct me if i'm wrong in my interpretation of the statute. >> do i have time for a question? >> did you -- >> do i have time for another question? >> chairman, may i make a comment, please? >> yes, you may. >> when i was general council of the air force, we used to get language every year that said you shall budget for 94 b-52s. it was not you shall have 94 b- 52s. and the chief of staff would have this conversation with me that said do i need to submit a budget for 76? i would tell him that he owed congress the candor to say i only need 76 but each year we

would get 94. it's our estimate but your prerogative to disagree. >> i think the gentle lady has additional 30 seconds. would you yield? >> i agree that you have to have available 34,000 beds under this law. and we give a dollar amount in there for how much we will pay to maintain those things. i think that is a call of the detention folks. the current concern that i have is for my experience of having one of the bad jobs i had was keeping our jail overflow from killing us. when you run out of space, the space you have to hire to meet a

crisis is about five times or more expensive than the space you maintain. i think the numbers track that we have been closer to 34,000 than any other number most all the year. it's not because we're filling beds it's because the need is actually there. we will find out as we investigate this. >> i was late. if i may yield to those who were here earlier if that's all right with you? >> that's fine. >> thank you mr. chairman. as you know the screening partnership program as allows

airports to apply for private screeners rathder than the fed rat scre ral screeners. 14 airports actively participate in the program. again this year the tsa budget proposes to cut budget for the screening partnership program. what level of oversight is dhs conducting to be sure that it is accurate. >> the level of oversight -- i'm sorry. should i go now? >> go ahead. >> the level of oversight with regard to programs like that one is in transition. we are conductk a top down

efficiencies review creating a new budget process and the like that i hope will lead to greater efficiencies and weeding out inefficiencies. >> the amount of time it takes tsa to award a contract and to transition that airport once an application has been approved. >> the same program. >> third point, it's federal cost estimate rather than the actual wages being paid. . rather than their current wages. i gree that in this environment,

cost efficiencies are absolutely critical. >> that's a good question. i would like to take that one for the record if i may. >> i want to quickly move to the personnel. >> given that they are individuals, for dhs programs similar to the personnel charity program, why should people have to go through that same process? >> i believe that we are looking for ways to consolidate programs, i believe we are looking for ways to consolidate our program.

consideration was being given to the use of the card by individuals. is this still on the table? many people have come to me. >> yes, it is. >> i believe twik is an important program. my understanding is that we are on track. to be in a position to mail two people their twik cards and get to the one stop system where you only have to go once to one card. >> happy to work with you on that. i would note that i personally have to go to the dmv to get a new license plate. >> i have a question that i will submit for the record. thank you and i will yield back.

>> thank you so much. good seeing you again. i want to focus on performance. we added some language that applies all agency heads that says as you prepare your funding request in consultation with the gao you should directly link your performance. and in there. everything as defined. one of the things that i would ask you to do is when we were looking at the performance.gov and there is is a hand out, i

think we gave you a copy, mr. secretary, i would ask you to look at, for example, your budget last year was at least $39.2 billion. >> there is probably a number that we attribute out of that to counter terrorism someplace. it depends on what aspects of our mission do you consider counter terrorism? one aspect of the budget goes to counter terrorism. >> i suspect there is is a number assigned to that and i just don't have it offhand. >> if you can get that to us later on, roughly.

i would venture to say it is billions of dollars? is that correct? >> and then your number one goal, your number one goal is to prevent terrorism. and then there are measures. now, what you -- would you venture to say that i would ask you to take a look at this? if you spend billions of dollars and your number one goal, your first performance measure is the percentage rated higher in customer feed back to understand the threat. and then you go on the second one, the percentage of intelligence report rated

satisfactory or higher in customer feed back. and then you go into some other ones, would you say that for members of appropriation if we. >> brian:uate billions of dollars is how satisfied are those people to get those intelligence report? is that what we should be measuring? >> i'm -- i took everything out of performance.gov. >> the way your question is stated, i would have to say no. >> okay. and then i would venture to say, i mean, i would ask you to go back with your folks and look at this language that we added to the bill. ask you to look at what outcomes -- i think the outcome we ought to be looking should be numbers of terrorist acts committed in the united states should be zero.

i think that's the result or impact that we're looking at. i would ask you to look at that because you are looking at activities. i would ask your staff to look at what an outcome impact is, what output is and all of that. i would also ask you, if you look at one of the things that i'm very familiar with since i breathe the air and drink the water in the rio grande and i live there, on securing the land ports, i think we should have much better measures than what you have here, i would ask you to just look at that. work with us, work with gao and members i would ask you to take a look at that. you're familiar of what we did in texas. we had different measures. we would love to sit down and look at this.

and the number one measure is are you happy with the report that we gave you? i think we can do better than that. i would like to yield back the balance of my time. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. secretary? mr. secretary, as you know, customs processing at our nation's busiest airports remains a problem. this deters international tourism to the united states, costing our economy billions of dollars annually. fiscal 2014 appropriations bill included funding for an additional 2,000 cpb officers. what is your plan for mitigating and eliminating excessive customs and immigration wait time s at our nation's airports.

and approximately, how many of the 2,000 additional cpb officers do you plan to deploy at our airports? >> congressman, i agree with much of the premise in your question. i agree that one of my missions as secretary of homeland security is -- is promoting and expediting lawful travel and trade. so wait times at airports is a big issue. i will observe that a lot of major airports wait times can spike up ask down very often international flights come in all at once. i'm sure you have experienced the same thing. you are correct that in the fy 14 budget we have 2,000 additional cbp officers, many of

whom will be devoted to airports. an important goal is reducing wait times, facilitating law enforcement travel and i believe we will be able to accomplish that with the additional resources you have given. >> thank you. since the attempted bomb plot in 2010, cpb and tsa have worked closely together and with the industry to create the air cargo advanced screening pilot program. it is my understanding that a draft rule to convert this into a mandatory program has been in discussion for over a year? can you provide any updates on when we can expect to see a published notice of proposed rule making, please sir? >> not specifically.

i'm happy to take that question for the record and get back to you. i agree with you that port security and port screening of inbound cargo should be a top priority. i will get back to you on the timing of the report. >> as a follow up. assuming this rule does get published and go into effect, does dhs have sufficient funds to establish targeting centers for the international cargo shipments based on risk? >> i will have to get back to you on that on whether or not we do. >> mr. chairman i'm going to yield back. i have more questions for later. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, it's a pleasure to welcome a fellow northern new jersey resident before our

committee. we share a common experience having lived in the new york/new jersey region remembering quite acutely september 11th, 2001. i know in your testimony, you sort of expressed some very heartfelt views as to why this new assignment is so important to you. part of your new assignment, i guess this is a presidential directive is to focus on the whole issue of cyber security. i note that in your you have $1.27 billion. can you talk a little bit.

>> i'm determined to advance the ball on cyber security. dhs is the coordinator in this rart. i ham very aware of the cyber security threat that this nation vases. and i think we have got to do a better job. i think because of the terms we use it's inpenetratable for a lot of people. one of my missions is to state the threat more clearly so that the average american understands that this has to be a top priority. the $1.2 billion is across the board.

it is the lead investigator in the target store issue with the credit cards in target that is also cyber security. there are a number of opponents invested in cyber security. which is how you get to that number. a large part of that number is the einstein system which is about ready to deploy. as well as response in the private sector and rapid respon response. >> could you talk about the private sector? with all the things that are happening out there? >> yes. >> issues of privacy. certain carriers. i think in many ways doing kroijeous things. you have to ben trait we need

working relationships some of whom have grown suspicious and others who have become participants. how do you handle yours yourself and your department in terms of your work in this area and how is it going? >> the biggest thing we can achieve is building relationship s raising the trust with private business with the average american. interfacing with best practices and the like and we are doing that, i am personally committed to that. i am engaging with business leader

leaders there has been a lot of suspicion raised about national security surveillance practices and a lot of public confusion about what we're doing and not doing. there have been efforts in this congress. i outlined in a speech this will help to clarify what we can do to raise the trust factor. i would like to work with congress to try to get us in a better place. but best practices, information sharing, diagnostics, i think that's the key with the private sector.

>> thank you. could you give me the break down of the 2,000 border patrol officers by location? >> we're in the process of doing that right now, sir. >> all right. not to be unfriendly here, but how could you ask for 2,000 if you don't know where you're going to put them? >> it's an overall assessment of what we need. >> where did that come from? why 2,000? why not 1753 or 2162? how did you come up with 2,000? >> first of all -- >> you inherited it. >> i am responsible for it, obviously. my sense is that we are able to make an overall estimate based on where we know we have a need nationwide to get to that number. >> okay. so it would be domestic, then? nationwide. so they would be not overseas in

preclearance offices? >> by and large. but some are and should be devoted to preclearance overseas. >> how big do you think that number is? >> offhand, i don't know. we have just opened a preclearance capability as i'm sure you know in abudabi and i think we need to continue to work in that direction. >> how many preclearance offices would we have in the middle east? >> we would like to have more. it depends on the assessment of security in each airport. >> where are the non-middle east preclearance offices? >> you mean airports? >> yes. >> non-middle east.

>> oh, in europe? >> um, are we not worried about placing so many in the middle east? >> um, the level of security at last points of departure airports tends to vary. some are better than others. in the airports that need a little more help and where the host government is willing to support us. for example, what we hope to have is is a situation where the host government will support our efforts and help pay for it. >> it depends on the ability. >> you propose a fee for this, correct? >> we propose that cbp, our

customs efforts be funded in part -- this is largely tsa, through the fee increases. >> and the fees would go to on an airline ticket are -- where do the fees go? >> if you're talking about dsa, there is a fee that we propose that would be paid by the airline and then there is the 9/11 security fee and i think i'm getting the terminology a little wrong that is paid by the passenger who flies and passes through tsa. if that fee covers it or and hoe

much money is already generated through other fees, i think that would be of interest. >> well, the -- the allocation of the additional officers was still a work in progress that we are almost done. so, the aviation infrastructure fee and the security fee would help to sustain tsa. preclearance is a cbp function. >> okay. thank you mr. secretary. >> could i have just to make sure i understand what the line of questioning is, you said border patrol. you mean the men and women in blue. the men and women in green is

border patrol. the men and women in blue is cbp officers. i just want to make sure. for us -- >> i'm talking about cbp. >> the men and women in blue. okay. >> mr. kingston, just for clarification, the the abu dhabi preclearance -- the only one in europe is in ireland and then canada and some in the islands. there is no others over on the european side except shannon? is that correct? >> mr. chairman -- >> and the fee that they're talking about, the immigration user fee on the abu dhabi issue, that's a fee that has been in

effect since 1980. they are asking for an increase in the fee. >> that's what i mean. >> but that is is a pretty long time established fee. >> no, no. i know. yes, sir, i know about the fee. but as i understand, there is an additional fee that is being proposed. >> they are asking for an increase in that fee. >> do we know what that additional fee is. >> it is to finance tsa. >> but do we know what the fee is and how much it generates? >> well, the aviation security fee -- >> we know what they are and we do know that the increases we're not real excited about. >> it just caught my attention. they all require authorization. >> correct. >> thank you.

>> one is the coast guard and the other is the acquisition status report. should be -- we don't have that. i want to get -- i'm not trying to gotcha, but i want to know when you are going to get that to us, but we have got a hearing tomorrow. >> i have directed my staff to give you what we owe you and not delay. i think congress should have what you need to help me. >> it's helpful to have that kind of information as we go into hearing. it saves time. >> understood. >> it makes more accurate questions. >> i understand. >> on to something else which you and i talked about when we first met. mr. secretary, we all note with interest the section of your testimony stating the need to reform the department, namely

budget reform. >> uh-huh. >> first i would like your opinion why you believe the budget process needs reforming. and i think to some extent you have, but more in detail where you intend to start. i think that's very important. i, too, have an interest as does mr. price in this subject. we are -- we think we can always do better. and so i look forward to working with you on this. i would love to have your information and what your vision is maybe for the benefit of the rest of the meeting. >> my impression is that the budget process is too stove piped. it's developed at the component level. we get the budget request and we react to that at the dhs level. we give it to omb and omb gives it to you. there are certain respects in which dod cannot be a model for dhs. but i think we ought to start with defining what our overall

mission is with regard to counter terrorism, border security, aviation security, maritime security, find your mission. at the dhs level, early on in the process, and once you've defined the mission, you figure out the resources you need to fulfill a mission and then you expect the components to meet those resource needs, paying attention to potential overlaps, gaps, and inefficiencies. i know from personal experience if you plan at the department of defense to fly two major conflicts around the world at once, that's done at the joint staff level you don't ask the army navy marine corps to develop their own sense and you react to that. i think we need to have a more centralized mission focused budget process that starts earlier in the budget cycle that

originates at the dhs level and we are building that process now and i want to work with the committee and get your advice on this as well, mr. chairman. >> i look forward to working with you on that. not to be trite, we are congress and we are here to help. we need to know what your needs are to help do this. and i think this is an interest among all members of this committee that we have an interest in this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i said when we started, you have a tough job and i would say that one of the toughest

challenges is immigration enforcement. and it's tough because there's a significant amount of disagreement among the american people and it's really one of the few issues for the members of this sub committee who don't regularly see eye 20 eye. wait until we get to the house floor. so this discussion here today, we have focused on the detention bed mandate. i think that a mandate of this source is very unwise. i have made this very unclear. conceivably forces ice to detain individuals at a significant cost to the taxpayer who don't meet the criteria for detention. and then there's the question about the enforcement of immigration law, deportation.

how do you pry ortize as any prosecuting office would have to do, how do you pry ortize your cases, your most dangerous individuals to focus on? and make the best use of limited resource resources i would like to invite you to reflect on this. how much if at all these di le mas might be made more resolvable if we had better data, more more comprehensive information, we're working, as you know, at the staff level on this right now to get more detailed data on exactly how detention is working and how deportation is working. how we're enforcing immigration law. i don't think the best data in

the world will bring us thecons. we find ourselves wondering. the example that was brought up, how typical is that? is that really what we're dealing with in substantial numbers in terms of these specific decisions that are made on detention? i certainly wonder about deportation. we all hear about the anecdotes, about people who should have been deported who weren't and even more those who probably shouldn't have been prioritized who were. families that were broken up unnecessarily. the situation with these -- i mean, some people go so far as to suggest -- i don't think anybody on this committee, but some of our colleagues -- go as far as to suggest there really is no difference, shouldn't be in difference between a dream act student and a hardened criminal. that if you give priority to the latter, then that really is

declaring amnesty. i mean, that is absurd, obviously. but there still are important differences, and here, too, we're not exactly certain what we're dealing with. the department has data, has data that suggests there has been an increasingly sharp focus on dangerous people for deportation, but we all know that that case is something less than airtight and the reality is somewhat messy and probably we would be better served by more precise data and more precise information about exactly what we're dealing with. i guess i'm just asking you to reflect on that, how much would better data help you? i certainly think it would help us. and we might see disagreement if we knew exactly what we were dealing with here, so i do want to ask for your help in getting

better information on this area and particularly in this area of prosecutorial discretion or the analogy to prosecutorial discretion in terms of the enforcement, deportation decisions you're making. the decision about whom to go after. what you think improved data is going to show us in terms of how far you've come and how far you still need to go. >> mr. price, i agree that informed judgment is always better than uninformed judgment. i'd rather arm you with information so that we can hav n an informed discussion about the correct approach to immigration reform. as the immigration reform debate advances, i've had a number of members of congress, house and senate, express similar

sentiment to me. and i'm committed to giving you the information you need, right? i had this discussion of a similar nature as recently as earlier today with some members of the senate, so if there's a specific request that this committee has with regard to data, with, you know, removals, priorities, happy to consider it, and i've pledged number of times to be transparent with congress on issues of this nature. sometimes we have certain law enforcement sensitivities, so i might ask you to accept the information with certain protections and the like, but in general, i agree with the need to provide the congress with information of this type so that we can all make informed judgments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to follow up on the subject

we've all been keenly interested in, of course, is the number of detention beds and the folks that you've got here in the country that are not legally present. the -- as in 2013, mr. secretary, i used 368,,000 violators all of whom met the definition of mandatory detentions. you've got a tremendous number of people here who were -- that number -- folks, for example, that have been accorded due process. people who had entered the country illegally. they received a final order of approval but they remain in the country in defiance of that order. at the end of july 2013, there were 872,000 individuals on issa's docket who met those --

in that category. they've gone through the whole process and they've been ordered removed. the vast majority of those just simply disappeared. so in light of that, what are the assumptions that you're making that would justify the agency recommending that you only need 30,539 detention beds? since you obviously have plenty of customers. >> well, obviously -- a couple of comments. obviously, not everyone among the 368,000 that were removed in fy '13 had been held in detention for the entire time they were in the united states. a large part of that population was at liberty for some period of time and then they were subject to our process and they were removed. the other point i'd make is that a very large fraction t-- i dont know the number offhand, but a

very large fraction of that 368,000 are basically border removals where they're apprehended in and around the border. >> the border patrol just takes care of it. >> and they're given over to i.c.e. because either they can't be sent right back to mexico or some other reason, so a lot of these are border removals. where they're in the country for a very short period of time. you know, we're criticized by some for the very high number of removals that are taking place right now, and so the end result of a process where somebody is detained who is not lawfulry l this country who meets our priorities is a removal, and as you know, we remove, we manage to remove 368,000 people last year and my understanding is that 98% of those fit within our removal priorities.

so that's pretty effective. >> but under the obama administration, more than half those removals that were attributed to i.c.e. are actually a result of border patrol arrests that have been counted in prior administrations. so you really can't actually use that number in terms of when you say i.c.e. has removed that number of people, half of those, of course, are border control removals and never were counted before. in fact, i think there's even a quote i saw from the -- president obama said in 2011 that these statistics on removal are, in fact, quoting directly from his statement, these statistics are a little deceptive because what we've been doing is for the stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the border and sending them back. that's counted as a deportation. sent back. that's counted as a deportation. that's never been done before in previous administrations. i've been on this subcommittee since shortly after it was created, and i know that the bush administration never

counted folks that were removed by the border patrol as being deported by i.c.e. you've got vast numbers of criminal aliens as well. to be sure, i want to be clear for the record if i could, i appreciate the time, mr. chairman, will you please tell the committee what are the assumptions that your -- dhs made, that you believe justify reducing the number of detention beds from 34,000 to 30,539? >> two things. first, the -- my understanding that 368,000 is the number removed by i.c.e. now, it is the case that for various reasons, including reasons involving logistics, a larger number of people who are apprehended in or around the border then go to i.c.e. custody. the number, 348,000 reflects those removed by i.c.e.

the number 30,006 is our best judgment about where detention bed levels should be given who we believe needs to be detained in this process. that is our best assessment based on what our removal priorities should be, based on what we believe are national security, public safety threats. the number tends to hover around that number. i think it's a little higher right now as we speak. but it goes up and down. but that is our best assessment of who should be detained at any given moment in time. >> you provide that to the subcommittee and the chairman and the staff? those assumptions, those numbers to justify your request? >> i believe we can do that. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, mr. secretary, one of

the reasons that we are given for not passing a comprehensive immigration reform is that the majority believes that president obama does not -- can't be trusted to enforce our laws. yet in the little over four years president obama has been in office, projections are that around early april, deportations will be reached 2 million. and that's more deportations than during the entire eight years of the bush administration and actually that $2 million -- i mean, that 2 million deportation number exceeds the sum total of all deportations prior to 1997. another excuse for delaying the passage of comprehensive immigration reform is our borders must first be secured. the fact is, under president obama's leadership, and frankly the thoughtful work of this subcommittee, remarkable progress has, in fact, been made

in securing our borders. we now have more than 21,000 border patrol agents, 651 miles of fencing, more than 300 remote video surveillance systems, and at least 6 drones deployed along our southwest border. in addition, due in part to these investments, the number of illegal entries into our country is at a 40-year low. and according to a 2012 report by the pew research center, net migration for mexico has fallen to zero. my -- i have a three-part question. is, first of all, does this -- what does this number of -- record number of deportations tell you about the president's commitment to obey our laws? and what is your assessment of

our border security in based on that assessment, do you believe we need to spend tens of billions of dollars more on border security before we can begin fixing our broken immigration system? >> first of all, i agree with everything you said in your first part of your question. we are enforcing the law. we're enforcing the law vigorously and effectively which results in the removal of over 300,000 people a year over the last several years. we are using the resources congress gave us to remove those we believe are threats to national security, public safety, and border security, and they result in the numbers that you see. at the same time, you are correct, the apprehension levels at the border have been going down recently. they've begun to spike up again slightly for various reasons. i suspect maybe because the

economy in this country is getting a little better. they're beginning to spike up again. all of this to say that we are enforcing the law at unprecedented levels. given with the resources congress has given us, and i believe that when it comes to border security, border security is -- you have to be agile. it's an evolving task in that border threats, challenges to border security tend to migrate different places. you focus resources one place, you've got to be agile and be able to move your surveillance resources, your manpower to another part of the border. the southwest border in particular. and so we've got to be vigilant. got to be continually vigilant. i don't believe that we should have a standard of border perfection before every other aspect of comprehensive

immigration reform kicks in. because i believe as a matter of homeland security, those who are here in this country undocumented should be encouraged to come out of the shadows as a matter of homeland security, should be encouraged to come out of the shadows, be accountable, pay taxes and get on an earned path totemplated b senate legislation would take 13 years, so it's not going to happen tomorrow. i believe we should do that. we should continue to work on border security which we are doing at unprecedented levels right now as part of an overall comprehensive package, and proceed on all of those fronts at the same time. so i agree with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, in the past, i asked if your predecessor about the disaster relief fund over the long term, and let me give a shout-out to craig fugate,

really good guy, nonpolitical person who's done a really good job working with fema. the disaster relief fund, pretty important to those of us in the northeast, wherever there's been a major disaster. your fiscal year '15 budget includes $7.8 billion in the fema disaster relief fund including $2.9 billion for the cost of disasters that have already occurred such as hurricane sandy. based on the disaster relief fund annual report, which i have a copy of here, which was submitted friday, this is what the department needs to respond to disasters during the fiscal year '14 budget based on current spend plans and what we call the ten-year averages. your monthly report, which i have, states that you'll carry over $4.6 billion into fiscal

year '14. is the requirement for $7 billion for fiscal year '15, is a requirement $7 billion for fiscal year '15, or is ithigher? in other words, there are two reports both submitted by your department that seem to be somewhat in conflict. can you provide a little bit of clarity? >> congress mman, i'd have to study the reports specifically that you're referring to to answer that question. my general understanding is that the request we've made with regard to the disaster relief fund, which is multiyear money, is sufficient to meet what we believe will be the disaster relief challenges. but i will take a look at those two reports to see whether there are any inconsistencies in that regard. >> during the debate on the

floor on hurricane sandy, it's my amendment, i took quite a lot of flak with what one of the issues was, and this is understandable. fema is still working on programs and rebuilding from storms that occurred before sandy. in the event of another disaster, considering sandy and others that we're still cleaning up from, how would you prioritize spending between sort of immediate needs, sandy projects are under way, and past projects? because there was quite a lot of angst and anger that we in the northeast are getting this and other parts of the country weren't getting, should we irem needed to do to do their cleanups. how do you view that situation? >> i think you have to -- it

obviously depends on the circumstances. i -- having -- living in an area affected by hurricane sandy, myself, and in a neighborhood, and i lost -- a lot of damage done to my own yard. i know that there's a lot of angst about how slow that money has been in coming. a lot of that depends beyond a certain point on what the states are doing with the money, not the federal government. and how fast we're able to push out money like that, it obviously depends on the circumstances. could we do a better job? i suspect the answer is yes. there's always room for improveme improvement. how you prioritize old needs versus new needs i think depends on the circumstance. that's one of the reasons why it's multiyear money.

>> but do you still have carryover money which needs to be -- >> yes. >> yeah. put to use. that's something which you are committed to expediting its use to meet the needs of the people? >> yes, that is correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, again, i know you're new and i have a lot of high hopes for you. you're smart and we really appreciate working with you. couple points -- >> at some point that excuse won't work for me anymore. >> at least for this appropriation hearing, it's going to work for you. but let me just say this. >> doesn't reflect it too much. >> let me, first of all, on the cbp officers, the men and women in blue, for us on the border where we appreciate all the work that the men aim women in green do, but, you know, having ports of entry, as you know, those men and women in blue are very

important. keep in mind members that over 80% of all the goods, goods and people come into the u.s. come through land ports and sometimes we don't tend to put that much attention. right in my hometown, we handle 45% of all the trade between u.s. and mexico. that's over 12,000 trailers a day. so we appreciate the men and women in blue. number two, we appreciate that professionalism campaign, i think they were supposed to start that in lor raedo and spr it out. there's a bad apple that comes in, you do what you need to do. a majority of the people who come over are come over to spend money in the u.s. i would ask you -- i've been working with your office and thomas wisnowski, good person. we have to make sure they know they're here to spend money, they're here, we have to treat them with a little dignity and respect instead of thinking that everybody's a bad apple on that. i would ask you to just check up

on that. ask you to check up on something the chairman and i and the committee worked on and senator mary landrieu on the senate side is the publish/private partnerships, on the infrastructure. i know there's five pilot programs for the service over time. i'm also asking you to look at the infrastructure because if the federal government is not putting the money in, i think we need probably about $5 billion on information. i think that's one of the studies we probably need. 5,000 cbp officers. you know, we start off with 2,000. that's a pretty good start. i would ask you to look at the private/public partnership because we want to see men and women in blue. and also the infrastructure. the last point i would ask you to look at, canada, the united states, i know we worked with candace miller on this. you know, on the northern border, the u.s. and canadians worked together. they join operations and do a

lot of stuff together. i'll sit down with the -- look at something similar with mexico. i know you're all doing a lot and i'm very familiar. i'd ask you to do that to look at some of the joint operations. i'm familiar. they're doing some. i would ask you to look at that, whether it comes to trades, tourism, even on the infrastructure, what they do, century lanes, fast lanes. what we do over here. we have to make sure we sit down with them on the other side. the head of customs, the mexican customs, alejandro chacrorn was here last week. i'm sure he met with you all. we need to do more coordination. what we do with the canadians i think would help us expedite trade, tourism and at the same time secure the southern border also. i know we've been working with the chairman and ranking member. we appreciate your support. >> thank you. >> mr. kingston? >> mr. secretary, the state

department requested from gsa a foreign affairs security training center at the army's ft. pickettin virginia. the authorize and committee were the ones who first waved the flag on this. the cost, the original cost was $935 million. however, if day use the existing federal law enforcement training facilities, it would have been $722 million. and then the scope of the operation was reduced, but it still is almost half to do it at the federal law enforcement training center that's in existence, up and running and fully capable of doing this than it is to create the new facility and training center at ft. pickett. omb, as you know, is looking at this right now. do you know what their timeline is, and do you have any comments on the difference? >> i don't know their timeline. this exact issue is something

i've talked to the director about. the numbers you cited are the numbers i understand to be the case. that we could support the state department diplomatic security training mission for about -- by an expenditure of about $275 million which is a lot less than $1 billion. >> yes. >> frankly, that's the purpose is to be a training center for law enforcement protection services across the federal government. so this is, in my judgele, a perfect example of why you have a training center. additionally, if we bring a diplomatic security training capability to fletsy, that will work to the benefit of allth federal law enforcement agencies and departments. so i fully support having the state department bring that

mission to that center. >> do you know when omb is going to make their final decision? >> i don't know offhand, but i can find out. >> okay. also, i wanted to submit -- i know we're all coming up on votes, mr. chairman. i wanted to submit a few questions on bigger waters for the record. mostly, some of it is past tense now because we've got another bill that has taken its place, but there was a requirement for fema to do a feasibility study on it before they implemented bigger waters. and for some reason, they bypassed that study. i'm not really clear as to why they would have, and i don't expect you to know offhand, so i'd like to submit that to you for the record, mr. chairman. and a couple other little follow ups. >> just my understanding the money appropriated to do the study was not sufficient which is why we couldn't do it. >> okay. we'll -- i may want to flush that out a little bit, but i

appreciate your sensitivity of that because you know what it did to the coastal areas. thank you very much, mr. secretary. >> mr. secretary, we're going it conclude this hear ing hearing. before we do, i'm going to point something out to you. there's several suggestions about morale. you and i had a conversation about the vacancies. i want to commend you for the vacancies that you built a fire in the white house to get them done. i hope you'll keep that fire burning. i think the leadership of having permanent people in positions, and i think you agree on this, is very, very important to the morale of the people. i commend you also for being a man who says i take responsibility. that's rare before this committee in many instances. and i appreciate that, and that's the kind of thing that

the leadership we're going to call upon these new people to get these appointments to be responsible for the positions that they've been awarded. so, thank you for that, and i hope you're going to stick with that because we need it. >> yes, sir. >> thank you for this hearing and for being here. your candor was much appreciated. we look forward to working you in the future. >> thank you, sir. thank you. >> unless there's anything gbod any other business, we'll adjourn. >> thank you

okay. good morning, everyone. subcommittee will come to order. before we begin today i would like to express to you, mr. secretary, and to the u.s. forest service our condolence in the loss of an officer who lost his life this week jason chris was killed in the line of duty, on this past wednesday along with his k-9 partner. we do appreciate the men and women who serve in law enforcement at the local, state, and the federal level. and as they put their lives on the line in the line of duty on a daily basis. so, mr. secretary, we realize any time you lose a -- one of your finest, we certainly have sympathy and certainly, along with forest service, and of course the chris family. i did want to mention that this morning before we get started. of course this morning we're pleased to welcome the secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack. along with the chief economist,

joseph gauber, and also the u.s. budget director mike young. thank you all three for being here this morning. we start our review of the department of ag's fc-15 budget request. basically we have three goals for this subcommittee for fy-15. the first goal is a robust oversight. as stewards of the taxpayer dollar we're all responsible for ensuring these funds are wisely invested and properly used. through oversight we can detect, eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. sometimes we're criticized for focusing on fraud and supplemental nutrition and assistance program known as snap. however this is usda's largest program. according to a december '13 "new york times" article it has an overall loss percentage of 4.07% per year. which is about $3 billion. when fraud and erroneous payments are combined. in addition, snap fraud undermines support for this program, and other federal nutrition programs.

i'd like to be clear that i support oversight and elimination of fraud in each and every usda program. including the farm programs, and insurance. those programs should not be neglected to be looked at in any way, as i mentioned. oversight is also about promoting strong program management. usda has had trouble for years securing its i.t. systems. we heard testimony last week that usda continues to have problems with this. of course as you can imagine it's disappointing to all of us to hear that. we also suggested the agency should rebalance the work and focus on managing their programs instead of just delivering benefits. the second goal is to ensure the appropriate level of regulations to protect producers and the public. this is about usda's -- how they implement laws, including the new farm bill and the 2010

healthy hungry free kids act. at times it appears at usda appears to pick and to choose when it will be flexible to suit its own agenda. unfortunately we have seen the administration go beyond congressional kin at times. i will explore some of these in more detail as we go through the questions. my third goal is to ensure the funding is targeted to vital programs. there are two sides of this. one is about the decisions of the subcommittee will make to allocate funding in our bill. the other is about the administration priorities. as you know, we cannot fund and do everything. we must focus on programs that are most effective, and broadly supported, and those that are address imminent threats. wic is effective and broadly supported program. we will scrutinize the fy-15 request to assure sufficient funding is provided to meet the current case loads. however, we cannot provide excessive funding that will then

unnecessarily limit funding for other programs that are of high priority. regarding rural housing programs, frankly, i don't understand why usda proposes to dramatically reduce funding for them. these programs have broad support across congress as they help low income and oftenaterly americans to have decent homes. and i hope we can discuss this a little more detail as we go through the questions. turning to usda's budget request at first glance it would appear to be modest and straightforward. it is $228 million below the fy-14 enacted level. however there are several new programs, and significant increases in funding for others. some of these increases are offset by questionable decreases. such as the closing of 250 farm service agency offices and the reduction of 815 staff years without any real background on how you arrive at the savings. there are major increases, including three innovation

institutes, costing $75 million, and huh dwrndreds of new staff the rural development mission area. in addition the budget proposes major changes to crop insurance program with the goal of saving 14.3 billion over 10 years. this is clearly an authorizing issue and the 2014 farm bill just spoke to it. while many believe that this program could be improved it is not realistic to pay for increases based on proposals that at a minimum have to be addressed by the authorizing committee. in closing, i must mention the president's separate and additional $56 billion request. the opportunity growth and security initiative. while it would provide $277 million for usda it cannot even are considered as it is above the agreed upon discretionary cap for fy-15. chairman rogers, who is with us here this morning has definitely stated that the house will write

its appropriate bill to the established accounts of just over $1 trillion. senate appropriations chairman mikulski has said the identical same thing. the additional request also is irresponsible given our debt, our deficit and our overall economic situation. while the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply during the past few years, the congressional budget office estimates that under current law the deficit this year will be $514 billion. so even after all the tough battles to reform spending, deficit spending this year will still exceed spending on all nondefense discretionary dollars by $22 billion. cbo further projects that under current policies public debt will reach $21 trillion. and that is 79s% of our gross domestic product by 2024. i think if you look at those numbers, they are very staggering. before i recognize you,

mr. secretary, for your opening statement, i would ask the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. farr, for any opening remarks that he may have. mr. farr? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and indeed, it's always a great beginning of the year to have mr. secretary here. your department has awesome jurisdictional responsibilities for all the food in america, for all the development of rural america, and essentially for all our ag interests around the world. and i think, frankly, with your background as a mayor, and a governor, that you really know how to handle your job well. i think you do a very good job. i would be interested in a comment or two. last year we were able, in this tightening to give flexibility to the department of defense in how they spent sequestration funds.

essentially rather than just us putting it all in a category, and across the board cuts and things like that, we gave them the flexibility to make those determinations. and i'm wondering if there's any unfunded balances that -- unobligated balances that you might have some ideas about how to use your -- give you some flexibility to use those in a limited budget as the chairman indicated. so, i have lots of questions. it's a very exciting department. and essentially i think a lot of us are here because it's also the biggest department in the united states government that handles poverty in america. and overseas. and i really appreciate your responsibility in that area. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. farr. also we have the full committee chairman mr. rogers from kentucky that has joined us this morning. i'd like to recognize him for any remarks that he might like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for getting us off to a great start on the subcommittee. this is the earliest that we've started off these hearings in my

memory or recollection. and we're doing it because we inherited a top number that both the house and senate can appropriate to. we're not dependent on waiting for the budget committee to come forward with a budget resolution that can be agreed to by the other body. so consequently we're way ahead of ourselves and we're going to try to keep going that way, mr. secretary so that we can get this committee back to regular order like we used to do things. 12 individual bills, conferenced separately with the senate. let me start off by thanking you, mr. secretary, for coming to my district recently. to help announce, as you did, the strike force program of the department, to try to help rural communities combat the difficulties that they're in economically.

and the strike force that you announced we're incorporating in kentucky, at least, with a program that the governor and i just announced called s.o.a.r., shaping our appalachian region. a region hit by devastating coal job losses. and the s.o.a.r. program will attempt to find new ways to make a living, to provide jobs in a formally coal dominated part of the country. so i thank you for that. ranking member lowey and i have committed to moving all of the 12 bills through subcommittee, full committee, and the floor, and we plan to move that process along at a very brisk pace, as you can tell. we've had, i think you're the

... adequate, responsible funding, while continuing to reduce federal spending. totally $165 billion in cuts since fiscal '10. we've had to work hard to bring about these discretionary reductions. taking a lot of late nights and compromises, but we have gotten it done. now we've got to tackle mandatory spending. that's the big problem. when i first came here mandatory spending was a third of federal spending. now it's two-thirds and growing. and it's squeezing out everything else.

we've had to reduce defense spending. we've had to reduce spending for everything you can imagine in the discretionary side, because of the crowding out that the mandatory spending has caused us to have to deal with. so, mandatory spending, two-thirds of federal spending, is the problem. i see no leadership from this administration to try to tackle this major issue. and while mandatory spending comprises about 86% of your department's request, only 14% is what we actually sit down and decide how to be spent. the rest is on automatic pilot. and that's no way for a government to be operated, and you, above all, experienced that as governor. your budget proposes to lower

mandatory and discretionary spending within the department. however, we've heard this before, and over the last few years we've seen your artificially low estimates on mandatory spending blown up by the middle of the year. so, it is time to get serious about the mandatory spending crowd-out that's taking place, and have an honest discussion about how to deal with it. we can't hide behind phony estimates anymore. once again in this year's budget, the request proposes a significant cut to the section 502 direct loan and the mutual and self-help housing programs. we've seen this kind of smokescreen, and again from this administration, we're funding is cut for useful programs, in order to make room for new spending and create the illusion

of budget savings. the concern i have is that this shows a disrespect for our rural communities, and the constituents who made these programs successful. in my district, a group called kentucky highlands, whom you're familiar with, through its self-help housing program, has completed 20 homes, currently has six more under construction using section 523 self-help technical assistance and section 502 direct loans. for example one woman in my district just finished a three bedroom home for $98,000. if she had used the contractor, that same home would have cost $145,000. the rental home where she and her young daughter previously lived was so poorly insulated that she kept the thermostat at 52 degrees in the winter just so the electric bill would stay below $500 a month.

her electric bills now are expected to average around $100 a month. in her new home. another single mother in my district used these programs to build a four bedroom home for herself and her four children, $102,000. a contractor would have charged her $148,000. and it would not have been possible without the section 502 direct loan program. and the equity earned through section 523. it seems to me that this is sort of thing we should be encouraging and there are a lot more hard-working people like these women who are more than happy to put in the time and effort to gain their own home. so i hope that we can begin to support this program with a little more emphasis than we've seen in the budgets so far. so mr. secretary we look forward to hearing your testimony. we welcome you to the hill. we thank you for visiting in

kentucky, as you did. and we look forward to working with you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman rogers. also we have the ranking full committee ranking member, miss lowey. and we'd like to recognize you for your opening comments. >> well, thank you very much, chairman aderholt and ranking member farr. it is a pleasure for me to welcome secretary vilsack. you've had a distinguished career, and we're fortunate to have someone of your caliber and experience in this position. thank you. mr. secretary, your department plays an important role in nutrition assistance for vulnerable populations. conservative efforts. rural community development. research to combat climate change and improve crop yields. the range and scope of usda's responsibilities is truly amazing. i was particularly pleased that your budget request fully funds the expected participation for the wic program, along with

additional funds to successfully implement the new wic rule. as you know the new rule notably provides more money for the purchase of fruits and vegetables for children, makes other important improvements, as well. with approximately 15,000 nutritionally at-risk women, infants and children served per month in new york, this program is vital to the health of young mothers and their children and i applaud the department for issuing the new rule. additionally, while i oppose the $66 million cut to the food piece program i agree with the proposal to grant the administration the authority to use up to 25% of title ii resources available in cash for emergencies to better respond to multiple, high-level crises around the world. this change will allow u.s. aid

to administer the program to reach an estimated 2 million more people in chronically food insecure communities like syria, the central african republic, south sudan, with the same resources. i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to continue to review the president's budget request, to ensure that we adequately fund initiatives to combat hunger, ensure the safety of our food supply, and support sustainable agriculture practices. thank you. >> thank you, miss lowey. just a reminder, if you could put electronics on the silent mode during the hearing that would be helpful. also we understand that we may have votes that will be called over the next few minutes. so, we will have the -- take questions or take your statement as long as we can, and then we

will do a temporary adjournment to go vote and then we'll be back for more questions. so everybody is welcome to come back after the votes to proceed. so secretary vilsack without objection your entire written testimony will be included in the record. but at this time i'd recognize you now for your statement, and then we'll proceed on with our questions. thank you again for being here. >> mr. chairman, congressman farr and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning. let me start by focusing on the impact of this budget on real people. 40,000 farmers, 85% of which will be beginning farmers, or socially disadvantaged farmers, will benefit under this budget. crop insurance will cover $63 billion in crops, afis will protect $165 billion in value in livestock, poultry and specialty gro crops as a result of this budget. the foreign ag service will continue to support $140 billion in agricultural exports, at or

near record levels, which help to support nearly 1 million jobs here at home. the food and nutrition assistance programs will benefit nearly 47 million americans under the s.n.a.p. program. 8.7 million women, infant and children under the wic program. nearly 3 million young people during the summer feeding programs. the food safety budget will provide assistance and help in protecting our food supply, and reducing foodborne illnesses by an estimated 52,000 illnesses. nrcs will help provide condition servation assistance that will add 23 million acres of land to our conservation programs which are at record levels, helping nearly a half a million producers do a better job of conserving soil and protecting the water. while it's not specifically related to this budget, it does have an impact on this budget. our overall budget will also support 193 million acres of

forest and grasslands under the u.s. forest service jurisdiction which will protect 70,000 communities that are located within the urban wildlife interface and the 45 million homes that are located in those communities. rural development will help support, create and retain 44,000 jobs with the investments we make through our rural business programs. our rural utilities will provide additional improved electric service to 4.6 million. 2.2 million people will receive better water and sewage facilities. 140,000 households and businesses will benefit from expanded broadband access. 166,000 people will have the dream of home ownership as a result of this budget. i think it is important to point out that the budget authority that we are requesting in terms of housing has actually increased. the problem and challenge is that interest rates have driven up the cost of borrowing. which is why it's going to be difficult for us to reach the program levels in the past.

this is not a situation where we're cutting. it's a situation where the cost of lending has increased. 13 million people will benefit from community facilities located in their community improving. these might be police stations and fire stations, they may be hospitals, libraries or schools that we invest our community facility resources in. and our research facilities will help to support nearly 100 research facilities in the agricultural research service that are currently involved in 800 research projects that over the last five years have supported 250 patents, and 383 licensing agreements which lead to jobs and small business growth. in addition, the nifa program, national student and grant program is helping to support our land grant universities, our historic black colleges and universities. our hispanic serving institutions and our travel colleges and universities. this is about results, and we're focused on results. we're also focused on reforms. this budget proposes a number of

reforms. including the ability of modernizing our farm service agency offices, so that they can better handle the challenges that formers and rural americans face by providing a bridge to those farmers through additional opportunities. we will also continue to focus our efforts on reform on our rental assistance program so that it continues to support the 285,000 families that benefit from our rental assistance program. we need to right-size that program, and we need additional tools to be able to do that. given actions taken by congress in the past, that have now created a challenging situation for us would fit rental assistance within existing budgets. we're also going to continue to look at ways in which we can improve our services, through a series of reforms that are outlined in this budget, including the development of a rural core which will be 150

experts in rural development whose focus and job will be to look at the areas of most persistent poverty to assist and to complement and amplify the strike force initiative that chairman rogers alouded to. this budget will also focus on opportunity. the ability to significantly expand low fund regional food systems as an alternative for small and midsize producers, additional new market opportunities for them, we'll also take advantage of new farm bill that passed, that creates an opportunity for us to expand rural manufacturing, 14% of all american manufacturing is related to food and agriculture and we want to expand on that with the biobased product manufacturing opportunities that the farm bill presents. this bill also focuses on innovation. three innovation institutes focused on antimicrobial resistance, pollinators and the bioproduct manufacturing wl