one crosses the south texas border who is not being smuggled. there is no freelancing. it is all part of an organized process put in place. to aspects oftive our system that may create magnets for illegal immigration. i am sensitive to that. when i was on the frontlines, i talk 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 we need comprehensive immigration reform. both for the added border security that it would provide and, frank a matter of homeland earned path to citizenship for the 11 million who are here. i want them to come out of the shadows so we know who they are. to the challenges

people on the front lines days. in south texas and the valley we have some work there to do this in particular. between a difference catch and release and apprehension arrests. you know this from your time in the judiciary and someone being released on parole or bond because someone has determined they are not a flight risk. happen.s we have asked for 94 million alternatives for the program we think is a pretty good one. >> would have to confirm what i just said about an invitational

posture. i thank you for your comments. we had catch and release. . interview bondsman the policy they had was that they would make the bond but they were before it is often a month to cut they knew the notions were going to be 90%. they were gaming the system. this is only had catch and release as the positive. to go on. i will get my time again. >> thank you. know on the subcommittee we have worked very hard to be full partners with our first responders and with our first responders and with the state and local governments should to fully fund fema's first responder programs. i know the administration has also proposed the opportunity of growth and security initiative

that includes additional funding. for beyond thed top line funding level. addition, the department is proposing to establish a national preparedness grant program which would take the place of the currently funded for fairness program. that would include the homeland security grant program, the security initiative, the port security program and the transportation security program. proposedistration has authorization language for this new mgpg. the proposal is basically the same that we have seen in recent years. i am wondering if you could elaborate for us the rationale for this proposal. effects.he practical

would the major urban areas, are they justified that they could lose access to significant amounts of this? to relye cities need solely on their state governments? describe howld you changes have been made in response to some of the criticisms leveled by stakeholders? do you accept that we will see significantly different balance area. these are programs that are important to us. they are important to us.

we try to focus as we possibly can. we have resisted this. we have resisted it. have reason to believe the current grant structure is well-defined and has delivered important assistance. idea orave a different believe the bottom line is delivered, it will be different. it is time to let us know that rationale. this is the first and we have seen it.

>> i was pleased that in the 14 budget agreement there was more money set aside for state-level and nuance he grants. for my counterterrorism point of view it is particularly important as the threat becomes more diffuse or localize. this is particularly localize. we intend to work with more money. we know this debate has been going on. i've asked the very same questions you just asked me. my understanding is that with the consolidation of the programs at the state level there would be increased

efficiencies in terms of federal oversight of how the grant money is spent and increased deficiency on the state and local side in terms of oversight for how this money is distributed. know they administer these and is a big lever and consolidating the grant program. he believes we need to do this. he administers this program. to defer to his judgment. i understand the concerns. are engaged in grantmaking, if there is a way to reduce the overhead so that the grant money is maximized in terms of giving to its maximum impact, that is a good thing.

that is where we come back to this. that is why we offer authorization language to offer it. that is my reason for the proposal. >> just one detail question about the authorization language. to propose authorization held and sustain court capabilities. is that a fact? i know you are maintaining the safer grants as discrete programs. visits include firefighting as one of the capabilities? is is proposed to be changed? x i had to take that question for this. the country has an opioid

problem. it is putting it mildly. recently the abuse of prescription drug medicines was killing more people than car wreck, opioid, oxley on and the like. thatve made a real dent in through concerted action on the state and local levels. and making some progress. that is what the center for disease control called a national epidemic. i have 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 or 19 years old. though we have made some progress on -- we have made some progress on prescription drug use but now they are switching heroin,g -- using

an opioid obviously. the rise in heroin abuse is what the attorney general yesterday called "an urgent public health crisis." heroin is notat made here. it has to be imported. it has to be brought in either across our borders or cross our seashores. this urgent public budgetcrisis in your you propose cutting the coast .uard drastically the one agency that can protect our shorelines against this invasion of the health crisis that we are undergoing.

you've cut over 800 military positions, over 600 selective reserves. cutter the fast response two evenng only though the program is on cost and i'll schedule. it is desperately needed. and your budget decimates operational flying hours by proposing to retire aircraft and proposing to cut hours for the new hc144 aircraft by 16%. i could go on. i could go on your cuts to the coast guard vital to our seashores and defense, particularly on drugs. we can talk about the land crossings the same way. personnel andin

case lawhe land enforcement. from 34,000 to 30,000. the homeland security investigations program .ecreased nearly 30 million i could go on. is the attorney general wrong when he said yesterday this was an urgent national crisis? maintain that the coast guard is not an important fact there in fighting that curse? withwholeheartedly agree the attorney general with regard to his comments. the short answer to your

question is that this budget hard choicesflects given are fiscally constrained environment in which we are operating pursuant to the bipartisan budget act and the top line limit that we face. we are personally committed to continuing with our recapitalization effort. my understanding is that the coast guard has the oldest fleet of vessels or any other in the world. we need this to fund this which is the last one. i am pleased that we are continuing progress toward the selection of a contract to her for the offshore cutter which is the medium-sized cutter in the fleet.

i am pleased that we have forward progress with regard to cutter. the smaller we asked for appropriations for two verses were six because we had to make some hard choices. my observation of homeland security investigations is that they do a marvelous job in terms of narcotics. i get daily reports on their efforts at the border of illegal narcotics. a greatthey are doing job and i'm kirsten to continue to do so. so. continue to do they have some hard choices. this is what we have to do. hard choices. the coastare cutting,

guard and the other agencies that fight illegal drug trafficking you are increasing management administration. customsions and enforcement. almost a 14% increase. because of these by almost 30 million. and so on. plus youchoices propose to increase the amount of money to complete the headquarters bill. elizabeth headquarters. $73 million increase. to me this is not a hard choice.

i disagree with you on the hard choices that you say you have made. your budget will put coast guard at a five-year low and cocaine addiction. a five-year low. we all know that o'kane is flooding into the country. this is not good news for the home folks. before i relinquish my time here, let me ask the secretary about the federal air marshals program. i know we cannot talk about that in "too much. i would appreciate a confidential report for the record from me. it aboutwhomever wants the operation of the federal air marshals, the number, the effectiveness, the preventions they may have expedited.

just an analysis of where we are and whether or not we need them. >> i'm happy to provide that report to you with suitable safeguards. i know we can trust you and your staff with the appropriate safe arts. i am happy to provide that to you. it is something you should have if you ask for it. >> anything that spends money we want to know about. >> i am sorry? >> any program that spends money we want to know about, are entitled to know about, and a demand to know about. i want a good analysis forth with before we market this bill up. >> i am not disagreeing with you, sir. again, mr.u secretary.

this included language directing the department to focus the urban area security initiative on urban areas that are subject to the greatest terrorism risk. in allocate resources proportion to that risk. language wasf that to focus the research of the department and fema on those urban areas of the highest risk of an event 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 to the fy 14 allocation? when can we expect the mower --ns under the

more focused standards? >> i made an initial review of the proposed allocations last week. i believe we are on track pursuant to the timetable we hope to adhere to to get the information out. i agree with the statement without the grant money should be prioritized. as someone who was on manhattan on 9/11, i appreciate the challenges we in the new york area have and on other communities. thatpect to have information for fy 14 very soon. i've heard from enough members of congress about the grant program and how we allocate risk. to make sureortant

we are allocating this in the proper way and that we occasionally reevaluated to make sure we are getting it right. i'm committed to doing that as well. >> the budget records would also cut 10 million from the security, securing our programs. this has been invaluable. critical of infrastructure in new york with radiological and nuclear detection capabilities to identify, respond to and prevent a radiological nuclear attack in the cities. kenny comment on the reduction in this. coordinatedrtment to ensure the proposed reductions would not harm the new york police department's

capabilities? questio >> i knew commissioner bratton before i took this job. i met with him i think two or three times since. i have a dialogue with the new york city police department. you are correct. there's 10 million less. this reflects hard choices. i asked specifically about this. expectatione and that we can leverage this through other means and other grant programs for new york city areas. other >> i thank you very much. i did work closely in this commission. i hope that we will be able to discuss this with the new commission. i would just like to discuss

some matter of importance regarding tsa. i recently met the security officers who relayed that female cso's are finding it more difficult to be loaded because they are held to the passenger ratherints, pat down's than gaining experience at other stations. approximately 33.8% of these are women. to conductrmitted pat down's as well as being the preferred choice of pat down of children that have resulted that nerdy three percent are responsible for over 50% of all the pat down's. downs isem conduct pat certainly a well-intentioned policy. about heard continuing the implementations. due to the increased demands a

passenger checkpoints. they tell me they are not positions because of insufficient number of them under the passenger checkpoint. getting the experience and other stations to be considered for a promotion. they are disproportionately kept at the checkpoint. in addition to making an effort youire more people, can discuss what steps they should take to ensure that females have an equal access training, promotion, male counterparts and the tragic shooting at los angeles international airport last year was resulted in the murder of hernandez.

if you can tell us what steps they are taking to improve checkpoint security. how will it train its employees to handle an active shooter event so an attack at lax will not happen again. the kid just address those issues i would be most appreciative. that before.heard i'm not surprised given the basic statistics. 33% of them are women. conduct the pat down of women passengers who are probably about 50% of aviation passengers. if you have kids, that is in excess of 50%. i would not want to see mail officers doing that with regard to women. certain, there's a logic to your question. it requires that they be on the front lines of aviation security. i would not want to see that

deprived them a promotion opportunities. i will look into that. that is an interesting comment. they do not raise this to me directly. with regard to lax, i was there. i spoke to the officers who were there. them about their security. i do not think that the answer is to create a security perimeter around a public airport. i think that would create all kinds of back logs. there is a review that is out on promoting security for our officers. that is a top priority. safeguarding of our men and women. i look forward to the results of that appeal. >> thank you. >> thank you. she is quite correctly identifying a real problem with

the ability of the airports to get access to identification documents. i hope you will continue to work on that. i'm trained as an attorney as well. businesses and engineers that got sued. i see that his or her background as well as an attorney. >> the last row was in houston. >> was it really,? counsel witheral the department of defense. dot as a point of curiosity, you think the individuals picked up by our soldiers are entitled to constitutional protection? very interesting question that we wrestled with extensively. as a lawyer and legal

advisor is whatever the supreme court tells me to think. with regard to this that detainees enjoy the full panoply of constitutional right. they have intended to say we are not there yet. we do not have to rule on that. that is the current state of the case law. go in that direction depending on the particular issue. i agree with that comment made earlier. i'm not in the business of enforcing the law. this as itt to do is. since 2002, the committee has

had a provision that chairman carter was strong support for chairman rogers in the final build that the president just signed provides this. no --unding made available shall not retain more than 47,000 bits. what is a department for homeland security. why would you request a cut the what is your legal

justification for ignoring that law and not complying with that? i dealt with similar provisions when i was the lawyer for the department of defense. in the department of the air force. i believe in the executive branch we have a legal obligation to make a budget submission to congress. have a best of what we think it should be. is your prerogative to agree with it or disagree with it. i'm sure congress will do so in this instance as well. with regard to that particular provision we believe we owe you our cancer and best effort. we believe it is the appropriate level for detention bits given our current demands. that is what you have. you're not feeling them all today. >> that is my concern.

today i believe we are , shyhere just shy of that of 34,000 based on the best judgment about who should be detained and who could be bonded or parole. do you agree? >> nondiscretionary mandatory. our bestiven you submissions based on our assessment of what we think we need. detect all of us on this committee are committed to the law. my good friend that i had the pleasure serving with on the house, his constituents who live right there, there's no one more committed than his constituents. they're on the front line. they deal with it every day.

they want safe streets and good schools. it is a beautiful city. you cannot go there anymore. it is like a ghost town. it is critical. detected it from all the questions you have seen in this hearing. you would force it as it is written. it is not what you would like it to be. law isalso following the given to you by the united states congress. this is not optional. there's no prosecution will discretion. still have 34,000 beds. if you could, please take that message back to the agency. they will be keenly interested in helping you obey the law.

>> to comment on the bed written as the law is and being interpreted by my colleagues, it is saying that you must fill 34,000 beds. what that does is take away the discretion of confessional thatnnel who may determine that someone who is there could be. you would not be allowed to use that and put them in an alternative means of detention because of health and other reasons.

there's the position of telling them whether or not you believed a certain number of the people that were arrested could be put into an alternative situation. is that how the law is? this is taken away from professionals in the 35,000 members is not filled? >> i'm trying to understand the logic and how this law applies here. it is very costly. it is something like $125 a the figureposed to

which is something like $.37 per day to put them in alternative measures. could you explain to me? >> i do not have the statute in front of me. i have no doubt it says the word shall in front of it. i do not know that the interpretation hanna, and feel free to disagree is that -- here, and feel free to disagree with me, that we have more than 1000 at any time. we must have the capability. >> the capability is one thing but if it is that you must there's is no discretion. the beds have to be filled every

of who youdless of are resting whether it is elderly or otherwise. that is how i am asking for clarification. >> they say it shall maintain a level of not less than 35,000 attention bed through september 30 2014. reading that i would interpret that to mean that we have to maintain 34,000 attention bed. some of those might be empty at any time. we have to maintain 34,000. believe that is not the best and highest use of our resources given our current estimates of who we need to detain, who regard as public safety order security threats. our best estimate is that the number is something south of

34,000, particularly we have what we feel is a pretty good alternative to the program that we passed for funding for. we have asked for something around 30.6 thousand two detain you we believe needs to be detained. isyour interpretation different than previous interpretations. the beds to not have to be told. they have to be available. on whether or not to put them into on alternative situation remains at the professional?the >> i am reading the statue. i think there is a little bit of a disadvantage here. >> is mine to rotation of the statue. >> do we have time for >> when i wason

general counsel of the air force we use to get language every year. it is not exactly like this. it said you shall budget for 94 b-52s. it was not that you should have it. it was that you should see this budget. staff of the air force would have this conversation with me every year. for have to submit a budget 94? i think it we only need 76. it to sayhink you owe you only need 76. you can disagree with what ever year. process, i think we owe our best estimate of what we need and how we should spend the money. it is your prerogative. >> i think she has about 30

seconds. >> would you yield? that you had to have available 34,000 beds. they have to be made available. i think that is what this is. it is a dollar amount and how much they will hate. call of the is a folks. have isent concern i oft from my experiences having one of the bad jobs was keeping our jail overflown from killing us. you you run out of space have to hire this. it is about five times or more expensive than the space that you maintained.

i think we track is closer to 34000 and any other number. it is not because we're filling it with people who don't need to be there. the need is there. i will find out as we investigate this. >> i was late. if i may yield to those who were here earlier. here earlier. if that is alright with you. >> that is fine. >> thank you. know, the screening partnership program allows airports to apply for private screeners rather than the federal screeners. this is proposing the concept. at least 14 airports actively

participate in the program. this year the budget proposed the funding for the british appeared there a few questions i would like you to address. what level of oversight are they conducting to ensure the cost comparison process is accurate? >> the level of oversight, i'm sorry. should i go now? the level of oversight that we are providing from the components with regard to programs like that one is in transition. we are conducting a top-down efficiency review including creating a new budget process and the like. i hope it will lead to greater efficiencies in weeding out

inefficiencies without regard to that particular program. >> is day just satisfied with the amount of time it takes them to award a contract and you transition that wants an application has been approved? >> for what program? >> the same program. sure there's room for improvement. >> the third point i want to make is tsa bases is cost on the starting wages rather than the actual wages being paid by the tsa. they me this without paying income and employees at tsa starting salary. inmy carter and i agree that this environment cost efficiency is absolutely critical. set the bar?

that is a good question. i would like to take one for the record. >> i would like to quickly move to the personnel assured program. given there are individuals who are being vetted for security clans for dhs program similar to , why should people have to go through that same process twice? i believe that we are looking for ways to consolidate her screening programs. >> i appreciate your help with that. at one point consideration was to be by individuals . is this on the table? >> i believe it is an important

program. my understanding is that we are on track to be on a position to mail to people their cards and get to the one-stop system where you only have to go wants to get your card and then you get it mailed to you. >> we would like to work with your folks on that issue. >> thank you. i would note i personally have to go to the dmv to get my new license plate. >> i saw deal that my time. i want to say i have a question i will submit to the record at some point with respect to the motor coaching industry. i yield back. >> thank you so much. it is good seeing you again. what i want to do is focus on

performance. this last appropriation bill we added some language that applies to all agency heads that says that as you prepared your request as part of the annual budget and in consultation with the gao, you should directly tiedyour performance plan into that performance measure and in their you have to show that the performance measures that would give you one dollar, what do we get for that one dollar? on that they should examine outflow measures, every bit of find it. one of the things i would ask you to do is when we were looking at the performance.gov and your performance goals, and there is a handout if you will look at that. i think we gave you a copy also. yourld ask you to look at

39 point $2year was billion. how much money do you think out of that is used for terrorism which is your number one goal preventing terrorism roughly? on, there is probably a number we attribute out of that 39.2 to counterterrorism. it depends on what aspects of our mission do you think to be counterterrorism. what aspect of the budget goes to counterterrorism. a number isere is assigned. i just do not have it offhand. >> india get that to us later on. isould venture to say it billions and billions of dollars we put in terrorism. is that correct. >> that is probably correct. goal, you setone

different goals. at just taking you have performance.gov. your number one goal is to prevent terrorism. then there is measures tied into that. say, and ienture to am looking at members, if we spend billions of dollars on your number one goal, your first theormance measure is percentage of intelligence report rated satisfactory or higher and customer feed back that enables them to understand the reds. then you go on on the second one. the report rated satisfactory feedback that enables customers to dissipate in emerging threats. i think you retire that. then you go into other ones.

would you save for members of the appropriations, that if we appropriate billions of dollars of the number one measure you should have is how satisfied are the people that get those intelligence reports. is that what we should be measuring? i took everything out of performance.gov. i assume all of that is correct. >> the way your question is stated i would have to say no. then i would venture to say, i would ask you to go back with your folks and look at this language we added to the omnibus bill, ask you to look at what outcomes. i think the outcome we ought to be looking after we have billions of dollars should be numbers of ask in the united states. it should be zero. i think that is the result of the impact that we are looking at. i would ask you to look at that. you are looking at activities. i would ask your staff to look

at the definition of what an outcome measure is. if you look at one of the things the i'm very familiar with water, on the lan port for example 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. i would ask you to take a look at that. you are familiar with what we did in texas. we have different measures. we would love to sit down and look at this. we are just measuring activity. after billions of billions of dollars in the number one measure is are you happy with the report 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. >> as you know, customs processing at her nation's busiest airports during peak travel times remain a problem. deters international tors and to the united states, costing our economy billions of dollars annually. fy 14 are aware the appropriations bill included funding for an additional 2000 cpb officers. what is your plan for eliminating excessive customs and immigration wait times at a nation's airports? specifically, approximately how many of the 2000 additional cpb officers do you plan to employ at our airports? i agree with much of the

premise in your question. of my missionse as secretary of homeland andrity is promoting expediting lawful travel and trade. wait times at airports is a big issue. i will observe that in 11 major airports wait times can spike up the typedepending on of day. international flights come in time. >> you are correct. the fy 14 budget we have 2000 additional officers. many of them will be devoted to airports. preliminary efforts

of where it should get go. we want to make sure we're making the best allocation. i think we'll be able to accomplish this with the additional resources that you give us. plotnce the attempted him and tsa have cpb worked closely together to create the air cargo advance screening pilot program. this has been in discussion for .ver a year can you provide any updates only can expect to see proposed rulemaking? >> not specifically. i'm happy to take that for the record and get back to you. i agree that port security and import screening of invite --

inbound cargo should be a top priority. it is certainly a top priority of mine. i would get back to you on the timing on the report. >> as a follow-up, assuming this role does get published and goes into effect in the near future, does day just have sufficient funds to staff the national targeting center that analyzes and targets these inbound cargo shipments based on risk? >> i will have to get that to you on that on whether we do. i want to yield back. i have some more questions for later. >> thank you. >> thank you. pleasure to welcome a fellow new jersey resident before our committee. a common experience having lived in the new york/new jersey region. acutelying quite

september 11 2001. in her testimony before the authorizers you expressed some very heartfelt views as to why this new assignment is so important to you. if part of your new assignment i to focus on the whole issue of cyber security. i noticed that in your written youement in the 2015 budget have $1.27 billion for department of homeland cyber security. can you talk a little bit about ofse priorities for the use these dollars? >> i'm determined to advance the ball on cyber security.

dhs is the coordinator of the efforts in this regard. i am very aware of the cyber security threats that this nation faces based on my experience in national security. i think we have to do a better job. the subject matter in general is because of the terms we use in penetrable for a lot of people. one of my missions is to state the threat more clearly in plain terms. the average american understands that this has to be a top priority. billion is across dhs. pdd whichrs not just m has the core mission but also includes a component. for example, the secret services is the lead investigator in the target store issue with the credit cards at target. it is also cyber security. across dhs are a number of

proponents invested in cyber security which is how you get to that number. a large part of that number is the einstein system where we protected the.gov world which is about ready to deploy. and includes about 375 million for that as well as response in the her and diagnostic rapid response. >> can you talk a little bit about the private sector and all the things are happening out there, issues of privacy, search certain carriers doing courageous things? yet a printer using your own terms -- you have to penetrate using your own terms to educate the public. we need working relationships with these entities. some of whom have rightly grown

suspicious and others who have been participants not to willing . how do you handle yourself in your department in terms of your work in this area? how is it going? , thee best we can do biggest thing we can achieve on behalf of the american public is building relationships, raising the trust with the jerk. with private --private sector. with business practices and the like. and personally committed to that. i am engaging with business leaders to talk about this to lower their years. with some of the unauthorized disclosures last year there has been about a suspicion raised national government's

surveillance practices. a lot of public confusion about what we're doing and not doing. we have to restore some of that trust. that is a big personal priority of mine. in thisve been efforts congress at cyber security by and largehich i support. i outlined in a speech a couple of weeks ago what i think our goals should be. i am glad to know our authorizing committees are taking a renewed interest. cyber security legislation will what we can do in support of their efforts and raise the trust factor. to work with the congress on cyber security legislation to try to get us in a better place. this is the key with the private sector. can you give me the breakdown of the 2000 custom border control officers?

>> we are in the process of doing that right now. how could you ask for 2000 if you do not know where you're going to put them? >> is an overall assessment of what we need. >> y 2000? -- why 2000? all, i amf responsible for it. that we are able to make an overall estimate based have a needknow we nationwide to get to that number. >> you are saying nationwide. overseas. not be is that correct? >> by and large. devoted and should be to preclearance overseas.

i think that is very important. >> how big do you think that number is? know.hand i don't we just opened a preclearance capability. -- capability in abu dhabi. i think we need to continue to work in that direction. many preclearance offices would we have in the middle east? we would like to have more. it depends upon an assessment of the security at each airport. this is not something that will occur overnight. it is a general direction we should work in. eastere are the non-middle to cleanse offices? >> airports? ja comes to mind. >> non-middle east. >> in europe. >> are we not worried about placing so many in the middle east? level of security at last

point of departure airports tend to vary. some are better than others. i think we need to focus our preclearance resources in the airports that need a little more help and where the host government is willing to support us. government is willing to support us. to for example, what we hope have is a situation where the host nation, host government will support our efforts and help pay for it. the ability to work out an arrangement with the host government. >> you proposed a fee to pay for this? that our customs efforts be funded in part, largely tsa, through the increases. that is correct. >> the fees on an airline ticket

would go to -- where do the fees go? tsa, you are talking about there is a fee that we propose that would be paid by the airlines. and then there is the 9/11 security fee. i think i am getting the terminology a little it wrong. as paid by the passenger who flies and passes through tsa. think if i could get from you the breakdown of the 2000, where they would go and why, and the breakdown of the amount of money generated by these fees, and if the fees cover it or if you are talking about fees that partially cover it, then how much money is already generated through other fees, i think that that would be of interest.

i would also like to know what kind of congestion decrease there would be because of this. of the, the allocation additional officers, to my understanding, is still a work in progress. we are almost done. the fees that i referred to a moment ago would go to helping .upport tsa, not cvt so, the aviation infrastructure fee and security fee would help to sustain tsa. preclearance is a cvt function. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i could i, just to make sure understand the line of questioning -- you mean the men and women in blue. the men and women in green is border patrol. the men and women in blue are cbp officers. >> i am talking about cbp.

>> ok. clarification, the abu dhabi preclearance facility is the only one anywhere in the middle east or europe that is part of an island? and then canada on some of the islands. there are no others on the european side except shannon, correct? >> of fee that they are talking about -- >> mr. chairman -- >> >> the fee that they are talking about, that is the fee that has been in effect since 1980. >> that is what i mean. an increase to the fee. >> that is a pretty long-established fee.

>> yes, sir. i know about the fee, but my understanding is that there is an additional fee being proposed. do we know what that is? >> to finance tsa. >> but do we know what it is and how much it generates? >> the aviation security fee. >> we know what they are. really excited about these increases or these fees. one of them is not authorized. authorization.e >> correct. >> thank you. know, i talked earlier about the reports we are supposed to get. there are about 20 of them. one of them, mr. secretary, is for the coast guard canceling the investment plan and the departments comprehensive acquisition status report.

we don't have that. i got you, but i wonder when you are going to get that to us. i got a hearing tomorrow. i have directed my staff to give you what we owe you without delay. i think congress should have what you need to help me. >> i asked that question strictly to make a point. it is helpful to have that kind of information going into hearing. it saves time and leaves for more accurate questions. unlike the other thing, which we talked about when we first met. was a know that there need to reform the department.

explain the extent of the detail in which you plan to start. it is important and i too have an interest, as is mr. price, in this subject. we think we can always do better. so, i look forward to working with you on this and i would love to have your information on what your vision is. >> my impression is that the budget process is to stovepipe. the componentd at level, we get the request and we react to that, giving it to omb, who gives it to you. i think that -- and there are certain respects in which dod cannot be a model for dhs. i think we will start by defining our overall mission regarding counterterrorism, border security, aviation security, maritime security.

at the dhs level, early on in the process once you define the mission you figure out the resources you need to fulfill the mission. and then you expect the components to meet those resource needs, paying attention to potential overlaps and gaps in efficiency. i know from personal experience that if you plan at the department of defense to have the capability to fight two major conflicts at once around the world, that is done at the joint staff level. you don't have to be army, navy, marine corps, who have developed their own sense of what they need in order to react to that. i think we need a more centralized, mission focused budget process that starts earlier in the cycle that originates at the d eight -- at the ds level. with the work committee and get your advice on this as well, mr. chairman.

i do think we can identify better efficiencies and inefficiencies if we do this. >> i look forward to working with you on that. we are the congress, we are here to help. seriously, we want to work with you on it. i think there is an interest among all the members of this committee. we have an interest in this. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, as i said when we started, you have a tough job. i would say that one of the toughest challenges is immigration enforcement. it is tough because there is a significant amount of

disagreement among the american people on this issue and it is one of the few issues where the members of this subcommittee do not regularly see eye to eye. we have differences on this and if you think it is bad on the subcommittee, wait until we get to the house floor. that is where we really see some of the differences emerge. so, this discussion here today. we have focused on the detention mandate. i think that a mandate of this sort is unwise. i have made this clear. detainmentbly forces at the cost of the taxpayer for those who don't -- do not necessarily meet detention criteria. then there is the question of the enforcement of immigration law. , as anyou prioritize prosecutorial office would have to do, your cases?

your most dangerous individuals to focus on? the best use of limited resources. i would like to invite you to reflect on this. how much, if at all, these dilemmas might be made more tractable, resolvable, if we had better data. more comprehensive information. as you know we are working 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 are enforcing immigration law. data inthink the best the world will bring us a perfect consensus. on the other hand, we do find ourselves wondering -- the example that was brought up, how typical is that?

is that really what we are dealing with in substantial numbers in terms of these specific decisions that are made on detention? i certainly wonder about deportation. we all hear the anecdotes about people who should have been deported and were not. even more, those who probably should not have been prioritize but were. families that were unnecessarily broken up. the situation with these -- i mean, some peoples -- some people go so far as to suggest that there really is no difference. there should not be any dream act between a student and a hardened criminal. that if you give priority to the latter, that that is declaring amnesty. that is absurd, obviously. but there still are important differences. too, we are not exactly

certain what we are dealing with. the department has data suggesting an increasingly sharp focus on dangerous people. for deportation. but we all know that that case is something less than airtight. that we would probably be better served by more precise data and information about exactly what we are dealing with. i guess i am 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 narrowed if we knew exactly what we were dealing with here. helpwant to ask for your in getting better information on this area. particularly in this area prosecutorial discretion.

or the analogy of prosecutorial discretion in the terms of enforcement. the deportation decisions you're are making. the decisions about whom to go after. what you think improved data is going to show us in terms of how far you have come and how far you still need to go. price, i agree that informed judgment is always better than uninformed judgment. i would rag -- rather argue with information so that we can have an informed discussion about the correct approach. as the immigration reform debate advances, i have had a number of members of congress expressed similar sentiment to me. i am committed to giving you the information you need. i had a discussion of a similar nature as recently as today with

some members of the senate. so, if there is a specific request that this committee has regarding data, removals, priorities, i am happy to pledged it. i have numbers of times to be transparent with congress on issues of this nature. sometimes we have certain law whereement sensitivities i ask you to take the information with certain protections and the like, but in general i read with the need to provide 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 stuff we have in following, the detention beds, the folks you have here in the country who are not here present, in 2013

ice deported 360,000 or hundred 44 -- 360,440 ft. convicted cameras --- 360,444 convicted criminals. a tremendous number look people here -- number of people here, are here illegally, they have received a final order of removal, but they remain in the country in defiance of that order. as of the end of july of 2013 there were 872,000 individuals on the docket who were in that category. wholeere involved in the process and ordered removed. the vast majority of those have

simply disappeared. in light of that, what are the assumptions you are making that would justify the agency recommending that you only need 30,539 detention beds? you obviously have plenty of customers. >> obviously -- a couple of comments. obviously, not everyone among those 368,000 that were removed in fiscal year 13 had been held in detention for the entire time that they were in the united states. of that population was at liberty for some. of time. and then they were subject to our process and removed. other point that i make is that a very large fraction -- i do not know the number offhand, but a large fraction of them are border removals where they are apprehended in or around the border. the border patrol just takes care of that.

they are given over to ice because either they cannot be sent right back to mexico or for some other reason. many of these are removals where they are in the country for a short. of time. some foriticized by the very high number of removals that are taking place right now. so, the end result of the process where someone is detained who is not lawfully in this country is a removal. we managed to remove 368,000 people last year. my understanding is that 98% of those were within removal priority. that is pretty effective. under the obama administration, more than half of those removals were a result

of border patrol arrests. can't actually use that number in terms of saying that ice has removed that number of people. half of those were border patrol removals the never counted before. there is even a quote that i saw 2011,resident obama in saying that these statistics on removal, quoting from his statement, is that these statistics are deceptive because what we have been doing is apprehending folks at the border and just sending them back. that is counting as deportation even though they may have only been held for 48 hours. that has never been done before in previous administrations. i have been on this subcommittee since shortly before it was created. i know the bush administration never counted the folks removed by the border patrol as coming from ice. i just want to be sure, for the

record, if i could, and i appreciate the time, would you please tell the committee -- what are the assumptions that dhs made that you believe justify reducing the number of detention beds? >> two things. my understanding is that 368,000 is the number removed by ice. now, it is the case that for various reasons, including reasons involving logistics, a large number of the people apprehended around the border then go to ice custody. thosember reflects removed by ice. 30,006, is our best judgment about where detention given who should be,

we believe need to be detained in this process. that is our best assessment based on what our removal priority should be. based on what we believe our national security public safety threats. the number tends to cover around that number. i think it is higher as we speak , but it goes up and down. that is our best assessment of who should be detained at any given moment in time. >> you will provide that to the subcommittee? those numbers, the assumptions the justify your request? >> i think we can do that. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, one of the forons that we are given not passing a comprehensive immigration reform is that the

majority believes that president obama cannot be entrusted to enforce our laws. yet in four years president obama has been in office and projections are that around early april deportation will have reached 2 million. that is more deportations then during the entire eight years of the bush administrations. that, the 2 million deportation number exceeds the sum total of all deportations prior to 1997. another excuse for delaying the cost is that our borders must first be secured. the fact is that under the president's leadership -- frankly, the thoughtful work of this subcommittee, remarkable progress has in fact been made in securing our borders. we have more than 21,000 border 260 1000 miles of

fencing, remote surveillance systems, and six drones deployed along the southwest border. in addition, due in part to these investments, the number of illegal entries into our country is at a 40 year low. according to a 2012 report by the pew research center, net migration from mexico has fallen to zero. my three part question is -- first of all, what does this number -- this record number of deportations tell you about the president's commitment to obey our laws? what is your assessment of our border security? based on that assessment, do you believe that we need to spend tens of billions of dollars more on border security before we can begin fixing the broken immigration system?

>> first of all, i agree with everything you said in the first part of your question. we are enforcing the law. we are enforcing the law vigorously and effectively, which results in the removal of over 300,000 people each year over the last several years. we are using the resources the congress gave us to remove those who we believe are threats to national security, public safety, and border security. they result in the numbers that you see. at the same time, you are correct. the levels at the border have been going down recently. to spike up again slightly, for various reasons. i suspect maybe because the economy in this country is getting better. all of this is to say that we are enforcing the law at , with theted levels

resources the congress has given us. i believe that when it comes to border security -- border security, you have to be agile in those border threats that challenge border security migrating different places. you focus resources on one place, you have to be agile and be able to move your surveillance resources, your manpower, to another part of the southwest border. so, we have got to be vigilant. we have to be continuing in our vigilance. i do not believe that we should have a standard of border protection before every other aspect of comprehensive immigration reform kicks in. i believe it is a matter of homeland security, those who are here in this country undocumented should be in

courage to come out of the shadows as a matter of homeland security. they should be accountable, pay taxes, and get on a path to citizenship as contemplated by senate legislation taking 13 years. it will not happen tomorrow, but i believe we should do that, we should continue to work on border security as part of an overall comprehensive package 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 you're predecessor -- about this disaster relief fund over the long term -- let me give a shout out to greg few gate. really good guy. he has done a great job working with fema.

the disaster relief fund is pretty important to those of us in the northeast. or whenever there has been a major disaster. 7.8 billionincludes dollars in the fema disaster relief fund. disastersthe cost of that have already occurred, such as hurricane sandy. report fore annual their disaster relief fund, which i have a copy of here, submitted on friday, this is what the department needs to submit in terms of the budget based on current spending plans and the 10 year average. your monthly report, which i , states $4.6 billion into fiscal year 14 and is a requirement of $7 billion for fiscal year 15, the requirement

is seven or significantly higher? in other words, i have two reports. both submitted by a department that seems to be somewhat in conflict. can you provide a little bit of clarity? would have to study the reports that you are specifically referring to in order to answer that question. my general understanding is that the requests we have made regarding disaster relief funds, multiyear money, are 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. >> during a debate on the floor regarding hurricane sandy, and this was my amendment, i took a lot of flak. one of the issues was, and this

was understandable, is that fema is still working on programs rebuilding from storms that occurred before sandy. in the event of another disaster , considering sandy and the others we are still cleaning up prioritizeo you spending between immediate needs and projects that are underway, and then past projects? there was quite a lot of banks and anger. we in the northeast were getting this, other parts of the country were not getting, shall we say, the remainder of what they needed in order to do their cleanups. how do you view that situation? >> it obviously depends on the circumstances.

living in an area affected by hurricane sandy myself, and in the neighborhood where i lost -- a lot of damage was done to my own home. i know that there is a lot of anxious about how slowly that money has come. depends around a certain point on what the states are doing with it, not the federal government. and how fast we can push out money like that obviously depends on the circumstances. could we do a better job? i suspect that the answer is yes. there is always room for improvement. old needs prioritize versus new needs? that depends on the circumstance. that is one of the reasons it is multiyear money. >> you still have carryover money. it still needs to be put to use,

something that you are committed a used to meets the needs of the people. >> that is correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, i know you are new and i have a lot of high hopes for you. you are smart and you really -- we really appreciate working with you. forhat excuse won't work me. >> at least for this appropriation hearing it will work for you. >> it is reflective too much. >> on the officers, the men and women for us who appreciate the work that the men and women in green do. those men and women in blue are very important. over 80% of all the goods and the people that come into the u.s. come in through land ports.

sometimes we tend not to put too much attention on it. in my town we have a 45% of the trade between the u.s. and mexico. we appreciate the men and women in blue. haver two, even though we the bridges, we appreciate the professionalism campaign. i think they were supposed to extend that out? where it comes in, you all do what you need to do. but the majority of the people coming over are coming to spend money in the u.s.. i would ask you -- i have been weking with your office, have got to make sure that they know that if they are here to spend money, we have got to treat them with dignity and respect instead of thinking that everyone is a bad apple. i would ask you to check up on that, on something that the chairman, myself, and the committee worked on, the public-private partnerships

around the infrastructure. i know that there is the service over time, but we want to ask you to look at the infrastructure. the federal government is not putting the money in. i think we need about $5 billion on infrastructure. that is one of those studies where we need 5000 officers. we start off with 2000, that is a good start, but look at the public-private partnership. we want to see men and women in blue, as well as the infrastructure. the last point i would ask you on the northern border the u.s. and the canadians work together. they do joint operations. they do a lot of stuff together. sitting down with the chairman and the ranking member here in the committee, we want to see if we can look at something similar with mexico.

i would ask you to look at some of the joint operations. that comes tor trade, tourism, the infrastructure, what they do. make sure we sit down with the money on the sides . the head of the mexican customs was here last week. i am sure he met with you all. we need to make sure that we do work coordination. true --o is expedite what we need to do is expedite trade in tourism while going through the southern border as well. we appreciate your support. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, the state department requested a foreign andirs security claims case

the originalnd was $135 million. federal law enforcement sets up the sales team, that would be $272 million over $600 million in savings of difference. and then the scope of the operation was reduced, but it is still almost half of the incentive in existence for what they are fully capable of doing, creating the new facility. as you know, omb is looking at this right now. don't know their timeline. this exact issue is that i have talked to the director. the numbers that you cited are the ones i understand to be the case.

that we could support the state department, the nomadic security, training missions, by extended -- expenditure of 275 million. purpose -- frankly, the purpose is to be the training center for law enforcement protection across the federal government. is a perfectt this example of why you have a training center like this. additionally, if we bring a diplomatic security training , it will work to the benefit of other federal law enforcement agencies and departments. i fully support having the state department bring that mission to that center. when omb is going to make their final decision? >> not offhand, but i could find out.

i wanted to submit a few questions, mr. chairman. mostly some of it is past tense now. we have another bill that has taken its place. there was a requirement for fema to do a feasibility study on it before they implemented bigger waters. for some reason they bypassed that study and i am not really clear us to why they would have. and i do not expect you to know offhand, so i would like to submit that to you for the record with a couple of other follow-ups. >> my understanding is that the money needed was not sufficient, that was why we could not do it. >> ok. i may want to flesh that out little bit. but i appreciate your sensitivity to that. you know the gist. >> thank you very much.

>> mr. secretary, we will conclude this hearing. before we do i want to point something out to you. there are several suggestions about morality. you and i had a conversation about the vacancies. i want to commend you for the vacancies. you built a fire at the white house to get them done. you kept the fire burning. i think the leadership of having permanent people in these positions, i think you agree on this, is very important to the morale of the people. for being a man who says that i take responsibility. that is rare and before this committee, in many instances, i appreciate that. that is the kind of thing that as leadership we will call upon to get these appointments. to be responsible. so, thank you for that.

i hope you will stick with that, because we need it. thank you for being here for this hearing. your candor was much appreciated. we look forward to working with you in the future. >> thank you, sir. >> unless there is any other business, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> turning to ukraine, one of the headlines for al jazeera, pulls close in crimea. he says he will bring the separatist forces to justice. voters indicates that are leaning toward becoming part of russia.

other world leaders considered the vote is legal. john kerry spoke with his russian counterpart today, expressing concern over the russian militaries seizure of a gas plant near the border and what american officials described as continuing provocation in eastern ukraine. it was their second phone call in about two days. the foreign minister says they are continuing to work on the political resolution through a speedy launch of constitutional reform regarding support from the international community. we will bring you the results of the referendum when they are announced. elena kagan will be talking to students tomorrow about her life and career at the georgetown university law center. we will have live coverage on c-span beginning at 4:00 eastern time. we are trying to get those networks in place. building these networks out is our priority.

local sitehere are issues. sometimes there are federal rules that might affect how deploy things, the lighting or the impact on historic sites, the environment. we want to make sure we are sensitive to those issues while at the same time we move forward on employment, because our customers, those who use the devices every day in their lives, depend on having a good, strong connection, getting what they want whenever they want it. that means having a really robust wireless network. >> the wireless infrastructure, monday on "the communicators." >> the obama administration continues to push for young adults to sign up for health care. kathleen sebelius testified on capitol hill about the department's budget requests for next year. she appeared before the house ways and means committee for about two and a half hours.

>> the committee will come to order. thank you for joining us on the discussion of the president's budget. it has been four years since obamacare became the law of the land and it has been a bumpy road since then. will come to order. please, take your seats. yes, it is on. ok.

been four years since obamacare became the law of the land and it has been a bumpy road since then. millions of americans are paying more for health care, a trend that will only continue to spike . across the country middle-class americans are seeking smaller paychecks and working less. restaurants and businesses are struggling to comply with the law. forced to cut hours or hold off on hiring. millions of americans have discovered that their plan was canceled or that they can no longer rely on the care from their local doctor or hospital. i hear about the health care law is affecting communities, like my hometown of midland, michigan, and families fear the uncertainty that this is brought . despite attempts to bring relief from the burdens of this law, it appears that this is a roadmap of what is to come. we know that after the failed

exchange launch that since the administration could not meet enrollment targets and failed to sign up enough young and healthy individuals, premiums will be higher next year. the congressional budget office found that fewer individuals are finding health care to the exchanges, medicaid, or employer-sponsored insurance. while the democratic leaders promised that obamacare would jobs, 4000llion almost immediately, cbo projects fewer americans working as a result of obamacare. in fact the u.s. economy will see a decline in the number of full-time workers of about 2 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024. cbo went on to emphasize that this would mean the largest declines in the labor supply occurring among lower wage workers. , you havesebelius stated that there is no evidence and every economist will tell

you this, that there is no job loss related to the affordable care act. but the evidence is everywhere. we hear about it from employers back home and read about it in the papers weekly. the law is not working out as promised, yet the president doubles down and request another 1.8 ilion dollars for implementation. with so many unanswered questions it is hard to see our congress would approve such requests. i'm hoping you will provide some answers today. answers to basic questions like -- how much taxpayer money has been set -- been spent so far? how much has been spent on subsidies outside the exchange? how much did the failed launch cost taxpayers? how many people have paid a premium? how many previously uninsured americans have signed up for obamacare? we must all ask the question -- when is the next delay in the

law coming? seems not a holiday goes by without a new announcement from the administration that the lays some part of obamacare. missing is a mention of how we can secure the promise of medicare for seniors in the future. in a few short years medicare will work -- go broke. this committee has released multiple ideas to secure medicare for future and current seniors, some of which were included in previous budgets from the president. we have the opportunity to work towards reforms that strengthen the program and the longer we wait, the heart of the choices we have to make will be. we need an open dialogue between the administration and congress on this. i'm disappointed that the administration seems to have walked away from its commitments . i appreciate your making the time to be here today and i hope we can count on a more open and constructive dialogue between congress and the administration when it comes to working towards solutions for our nations

seniors. before i recognize member 11 for the purpose of the opening statement, please acknowledge that all statements be included in the record. thank you, member 11, for his opening statement. >> madam secretary, welcome. we really do welcome you here. this is a chance to have some dialogue. i hope that that is what will occur. instead of dialogue what we have had from the republicans is diatribe. we are going to see that further this week when there is an our sti reformup on a bipartisan basis and fund it with essentially the distraction of a ca. "the new york times" talks about the today enrollment and it is

interesting, republicans used to talk about part d and how it proceeded. the energy and commerce committee will come out with a report this morning. it is going to turn out that a ca enrollment is a percentage of projected enrollment and is already better than the part d voluntary enrollment. so, i hope you will be able to set the record straight. is short of the original goal. i hope you will address that, where we are, what the figures really mean. want to comment about 3 million young adults who have already gained access to health insurance through their parents policies, which would not have happened if it were not for a ca. i wanted to give one example of what this has meant for people in this country.

a person from brighton, michigan, in her 19 -- in her 30's, with lucas, a pre-existing condition. she has not had insurance and six years because it was too and -- too expensive. she lived in constant fear of getting sick or injured. she said -- there are lots of things i have not done. i used to like to ski, mountain bike, but if i broke her wrist it would cost me $10,000. that constant worry of what happens if. ont uncertainty ended january 1, when her new insurance plan to defect. the real contrast is an advertisement that has been running in michigan about a cancer patient -- i won't go into the details, but essentially she said that her policy was unaffordable through the marketplace.

the advertisement has been funded, over $1 million, by americans for prosperity. it turns out, according to "the detroit news" and others, that that advertisement and that statement together are just false. it turns out that this person will save more than $1000 per year. so, madam secretary, i hope you will use your time to the problems with the website at the beginning and put into perspective what has happened since then and where we are going. agree to have a dialogue. what has been the most short in this discussion has been the dialogue. we welcome you here and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. i want to now welcome our witness, secretary kathleen sibelius. thank you for being with us

today. the committee has received your written statement and testimony and it will be made part of the formal record. you will now be recognized for five minutes for your oral remarks. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee. in his state of the union, president obama laid out the back -- backbone of his budget. opportunity for all, economic growth, and security. the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility you should have the opportunity to succeed in america. the budget will allow our department to move this mission forward. we start with the fact that every child deserves the opportunity for a healthy start and high-quality learning environment. as the president has said, research shows that one of the best investments we can make in the life of a child is high-quality early education. science is clearly demonstrated the return onthat

early childhood investments is seven to one, far exceeding investment in the stock market. the fact of the matter is that these investments are good for our kids, economy, and family economic security. currently in every state the for twore costs children often exceeds the median annual rent. our budget puts a special focus on birth to kindergarten. bringing the total investment in child killed -- in child care development funds to $6.8 million, so that more of our children have access to quality care. we propose to expand early head start and childcare partnerships for more of our children, allowing us to build on the process of reforming head start. in this way the president funds the growth and security opportunity initiatives for 100,000 children with access to

high-quality learning. suggestal competitors that this makes good economic sense. china plans to increase preschool enrollment by 2020. in japan virtually every four-year-old attends preschool. if we want our children to compete for the global jobs of the future, these investments really matter. this budget expands voluntary home visitation so that we can empower our children's first and best features, their parents. the investments do not add a dime to the deficit. one of the ways they are paid for is through an increase to the tobacco tax, which we know encourages younger americans from smoking. every day more than 3000 children try their first cigarette. nearly 1000 per day become daily smokers. efforts to reduce smoking habits are imperative. these investments have broad

bipartisan support from governors, from business, military and law enforcement leaders, parents and health-care providers, and can make huge difference in our nation's prosperity. of course, no child can learn with a toothache that the family cannot afford to have treated. no family can save for college when they are drowning in medical bills. this budget protects the progress we are making in helping more americans obtain the opportunity of affordable health coverage. yesterday we announced 4.0 -- 4.2 million people signed up to the end of february, an increase of 29% in the month of february. the number of people choosing a plan every day last month increased from an average of 32,000 800 in january to 34,000 per day in february. we expect that number to rise by the march 31 deadline as more affordableearn how

the marketplace coverage can be. we know that a total of eight point cap -- 8.9 million people have been determined eligible either for renewal or for new medicaid benefits. our best tools for expanding access to health care are the community health centers , which are throughout the urban and rural areas. this budget helps them to serve the 31 million americans at new and existing sites. the budget also protects our seniors by increasing investments for elder justice, protecting them from abuse, neglect, and expectation. protecting consumers with additional resources to oversee the safety of our food supply and pharmaceutical resources, expanding the efforts to protect hospital patients. because the opportunity growth and security means little when

the family faces unemployment, it invests in industries that drive the economy. innovation, science, discovery. nih fundeds, the brain initiative and other innovative products. through the health care workforce initiative the budget expands the national health service corps, enabling us to focus training dollars on the primary care workforce. for all of these proposed investments, the budget makes fiscally responsible choices, contributing 300 $69 billion to deficit reduction over the next decade. by incentivizing high-quality, efficient care, by continuing to reduce health care cost growth,

strengthening medicare and medicaid with $415 billion over 10 years. we will also produce budget savings for taxpayers by continuing to crack down on wage fraud and abuse. every dollar that we invest in fraud and abuse controls and returned eight dollars and $.10 and money that we recover, which last year was a record-breaking four team $.3 billion. in many ways the budget reflects the notion from the book of matthew, that where your treasure is, there also your heart will be. than a ledger.e it is a statement of omission, intentions, and priorities. this budget exceed -- succeeds in that mission by encouraging growth and protecting both family economic security and national health security. thank you, mr. chairman. i would be pleased to answer your questions. >> the secretary has a hard stop

at 12:15. in the interest of time, russians will be limited to three minutes. i will yield to the health subcommittee chairman to begin questioning. i will then recognize the subcommittee ranking member, and then we will start in reverse order of seniority. if we run out of time before my opportunity to ask questions, i submit mine for the record and ask that we get a timely response. the committee still seeks information about how many people pay their premiums, how many uninsured are actually enrolled in the exchanges, how much the launch of the exchange has cost taxpayers, what programs were cut to pay for the implementation that really did not work. if we can get an answer to those questions during the hearing, i think that would be helpful. mr. brady is now recognized. >> thank you. year you assured us all that there would be absolutely no more delays in the

affordable care act. we have seen eight lays since you gave us those assurances, bringing the total now to 35. the question daily for our families -- what else to they expect? is it correct that you do not have the authority to extend the deadline? >> i have not seen their statements, but there is no delay beyond march 31. >> my question is -- the law clearly makes the case that only the individuals enrolled to the exchanges receive, but two weeks ago in regulation you deemed

that individuals who had not enrolled in the exchanges are eligible for those tax credits. is -- what specific provision in the affordable care act grant you that authority? >> i can get you the specifics on the authority, but it really comes from a law that states that a person is eligible for the affordable care act and the exchange process and are eligible for a tax credit. we have made it clear that if through no fault of their own they were unable to enroll, eligibility extends to a don't -- belated roman. the law isry clear, plain. only people enrolled in the exchanges are eligible for tax credits. handlesommittee that the tax credits, we know this section well. >> sorry, i will be happy to get you -- >> today. your experts are behind you, if

you would like to ask them. please do. but there is no provision there. get you this in writing. there is a provision that indicates a different person is not -- >> if you delayed this law because it is not workable for businesses, why did you not latest president not workable for families? how is that fair? i'm sorry sir. >> how is it unfair that you delayed this law because it is workable for businesses of all sizes but it is not cool for families. why are there not getting the same treatment? >> we have not delay the law's implementation across the board. of a butross the board for large businessel