-- piece is one issue, but you have to do some things to cut off the ability to resource itself. starting the floor of foreign fighters -- both of those issues have to be worked by our government and they have to be worked in conjunction with other countries not only in the region but internationally. also, there is a need to counter the narrative so i think we have to do more there. i know there are some initial steps that have been taken to begin to do that, but there is a lot of work yet to be done. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. i wanted to ask general austin a questions about yemen. senator kaine pointed out in

addition to the saudi's there were nine other countries participating in this to assist in yemen. we have been assisting in negotiations intensely for the last year. what has he ran -- what has iran been doing in yemen? is it not true it is prompting the saudi's and others to engage in this? >> certainly iran has been enabling the activity as they have done what they have done. i would go further to say iran's desire is to hedge in this

region. mrs. fischer: meaning regional domination? general austin: right. as it expands its influence it does so through the shia operations in those countries. that won't allow iran to dominate any region in the country, but what it does do is starts to increase sectarian tension and thereby serves as a destabilizing effort. mrs. fischer: let me be clear. when we are talking support, we are talking about money and arms, aren't we? we aren't just talking about we support you because you are shia . we are talking about actual support on the ground? general austin: yes, we are talking about material support

as well, but i think that is provided through shia. mrs. fischer: they give them money and arms, which has undermined our interest and cooperation we had to try to deal with al qaeda. isn't that right? >> yes, i think that is true. mrs. fischer: the other thing i want to ask about is by rain. -- by rain -- bahrain. what is iran doing with regards to that government? they are trying to destabilize that government, which in my view would threaten our interest there? general austin: correct. we see the same reach through the region, which increases sectarian tension and serves as a destabilizing affect. mrs. fischer: obviously it's a

different country from yemen but similar playbook in a different country. is it not? general austin: it's a similar approach. mrs. fischer: but obviously they are different countries. i think we need to be clear about what i ran's activities have been. one of the things you pointed out is iran routinely engages through the threat network. iran is engaging through support , which threatens the sovereignty and security of israel. this has been going on in addition to undermining our interest in yemen. correct? general austin: that's correct. mrs. fischer: this is obviously as we look at the attempts of regional domination by iran,

this is a deep concern. this is further example of how the region could be destabilized further. is that true? general austin: there are long-term effects in terms of this behavior destabilizing the region and having effect in other parts of the globe as well. mrs. fischer: and it further fuels a sunni shia fight in the region. would you agree? >> i would. mrs. fischer: i just wanted to comment as well on senator cottons question to you about the status of the taliban five. i know you are going to get back to him about it. i find it shocking the fact you are the commander and the state department has not already coordinated with you.

you are the commander. these countries where the taliban five is from and could return and present great danger into afghanistan. it would seem you would be i hope most closely consulted on this. i am dumbfounded they are not consulting you now and there does not appear to be a plan. i look forward to the follow-up. to the state department and everyone else out here, it seems to me the commander of centcom needs to be brought in this in terms of the five potential commanders that could get back on the ground in afghanistan and threaten our troops. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to all of you today.

thank you to all you do to protect us. they might end up in some of the hands of the extremists we are trying to fight against. i believe the service members under your command in the process of extraditing this are the most skilled at what they do. that is what gives this program the best chance of success. the loss of u.s. provided equipment last year and in yemen this year are stark lessons the fluid and volatile nature of the middle east can compromise our

best laid plans. i am concerned that for this program to have the best chance of success, the united states will need to become more militarily involved in this conflict than many americans may realize. secretary carter stated we will have some obligation to support them. this is part of the strategy that should be fully and openly debated in this body so the american people might have a say in how the military forces are used. since this was conceptualized it

was better understood how they might have a larger and better equipped enemy. why was the decision made before determining whether the united states would provide further protection or support for the groups once they were trained and return to syria? general austin: it was made because we will need an element on the ground to complement the work we are doing with our fires to begin to counter eiffel in syria. -- isil in syria. my best military advice is as we introduce forces we have trained and equipped, we should provide support. we should provide logistics.

we should provide intel support as well. i think that gives the best opportunity for success. senator lee: do you think assad forces in syria will attempt to attack some of the opposition members we have trained and equipped? if so, what level of military involvement should we expect from american forces? general austin: i think there is a likelihood that could happen. they are focused on eiffel. that is the first task at hand. if they are attacked, we should protect them.

>> that is not what we are focused on now. ask them to focus on it initially. >> do you think the success of the groups we are supporting, do you think that will require a new structure in damascus? general austin: i think eventually forces will need to plug-in some type of structure for sure. again, that's not what the military typically does. this is a whole government approach. senator lee: thank you.

senator mccain: i would like to comment. we send them back to syria. if they are attacked, we are not going to protect them? general austin: my recommendation would be we protect them. we have to protect them once we have trained them and put them on the ground. senator mccain: are we going to have a provision to protect them ? >> we don't have that. senator mccain: we are going to train them to go back into syria, and we don't have a policy as to whether or not we protect them or not? general austin: that decision has not been

general austin: general austin: i am very hopeful we will be able to tell them that. senator mccain: i hope as well but that does not stop bombing. when do the saudis notify you that we would begin attacks in yemen? general austin: i had a discussion of the day of the attacks so it was not much before you started the attacks. senator mccain: isn't that pointed commentary on our relationship with saudi arabia and the 13 countries and their correlation. literally the day of the attacks they told the united states of america they are going to launch a major campaign? that is really a fantastic indicator, the deterioration of the trust and confidence that

these countries have in a. dutch and. -- in us. some people believe it is better to be an enemy of the united states than a friend. this is quite remarkable. finally, i do not know how you recruit young people to fight and tell them they are going to go back into a country and we do not have a policy yet whether we will protect them or not, that is immoral. it is not only unworkable, it is immoral. if we train them and equip them to go and fight, we have not yet got a policy on whether we protect them or not. i would say that would also be something of a disincentive for recruitment. so i hope for the sake of these young people's lives that we are

training now that we at least have a policy decision as to whether we are going to protect them or not. and of course the best way to do that is with a no-fly zone which was recommended years ago with no result from this president. senator gillibrand: what do you believe the strategy is for the new campaign and what is the ultimate goal in yemen? general austin: i do not know the specifics of their goals and objectives. they are interested in at one protecting the homeland, they have a border with yemen, and also they have received requests from the president of yemen to help with military assistance.

senator gillibrand: what advice have you given or would you give the president about what our role should be? general austin: current position is that we will help the saudis with the intelligence and lodges sticks and planning support -- logistics and planning support. they are great partners and i think they are very appreciative only hope we will provide them. senator gillibrand: what is your assessment of their likelihood of success? general austin: in yemen? senator gillibrand: yes. general austin: i do not know the specific goals and objectives and i would need to know that to assess the likelihood of success. senator gillibrand: i hope you get the information sooner than later because more than $500 million of u.s. military

assessment to your amendment has fallen into the wrong hands and we need more accountability. how does something like that -- to yemen has fallen into the wrong hands and we need more accountability? how does something like that happened and how can we prevent it in the future? general austin: the $500 million as i understand it is the investment over an eight year. by -- three at bay -- period to allow the forces to build capacity. this not only includes materials but also training. training can be costly. when we are there we have the ability to monitor how this equipment is being used but of course the embassy is no longer there and it does not have an

office of security corporation that would typically do these things. so we do not have the ability correctly. if we have the ability to go back in and partner with a new government or a government i think that will be one of our focus areas. senator gillibrand: given that they are still in control, how do you believe we should deal with al qaeda in the iridium finance your given the state of yemen? general austin: the the -- the arabian insula given the mmc love -- pennesula given the state of yemen? general austin: we will use our capabilities to continue to monitor what is going on with the extremist network.

we do have resources of the region that we can use to apply to come through this network once we have developed the appropriate intelligence. senator gillibrand: what is the presence of isil in the region and will it be affected by the state of yemen today? general austin: if i could get you to -- if i could ask a question, get you to ask the question again, i missed a piece of it. senator gillibrand: how you see the threat of isil in that region? \ general austin: -- region? general austin: i think the threat of isil in the region is the greatest. senator gillibrand: in yemen? general austin: i think the intelligence agencies are working their way through that.

determining the veracity of whether or not this is a hard-core isil element or someone claiming to be isil. aqap are dominant and whether they can coexist has yet to be seen. senator mccain: i think the witnesses. similar pattern -- senator cotten: there is breaking news that they have begun a ground incursion. did they give you advance notice of that? general austin: no. senator mccain: quite a commentary. this hearing is adjourned.

>> today the bipartisan policy center hosted a discussion on voting in the united states. they talk about the report examining voting technology, voter registration, data sharing, and other issues. see a live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> the alliance for health reform hosts a discussion on the sustainable growth rate of medicare. the acting deputy director will take part in the conversation. coverage at noon, eastern, on c-span 2. this sunday on q&a, erik larson

on his book. >> the story gets complicated when the question arises as to what happened to the lusitania. why was it allowed to enter without escort, without the kind of detailed warning that could have been provided but was not. this has led to interesting speculation about was the ship set up for attack? it is interesting. i found no smoking memo. i would have found a smoking memo if it existed.

nothing like that exists. >> sunday night at 8:00 a.m. eastern and pacific. >> president obama outlined new steps by the consumer financial protection bureau. the president spoke at lawson state community college in birmingham, alabama and praised the house for passing legislation that blocks medicare cuts.

president obama: hello. it is good to be here. thank you so much. i love you back. i do. thank you. [cheers and applause] everybody have a seat. have a seat. i'm going to talk for a second. can everybody please give ali a big round of applause, please. [applause] i felt a little bad because she said, a man who needs no introduction, so i start walking out. [laughter] as it turned out, she had a little introduction. but it is wonderful to be here. let me just say, first of all, thank you to dr. ward. [cheers and applause] who is not only your president we named him a white house champion of change for the great work he's done here at lawson

state. we got two outstanding public servants here as well. congresswoman terri sewell is here. where is she? she's way over there. and your mayor, william bell. who is in the house. [cheers and applause] so i'm here in birmingham to just acknowledge that i didn't have u.a.b. making it out of the first round. [laughter] my bracket is so busted. but u.a.b., you know, that's a great accomplishment, i want to congratulate them. [cheers and applause] it's also great to be with students like those here at

lawson state. a community college. i'm proud of all of you. i'm proud of you making this investment in yourselves, what you're doing takes effort and persistence and it takes faith in the idea that no matter how you started, no matter where you come from, no matter what zip code you were born in, in america if you work hard you can get ahead. [cheers and applause] i think it was yesterday i saw a story where someone said that a visit from the president was a potential game changer for the neighborhood. i don't know if just one visit is a game changer, but it's nice to be with you. the real game changers for any neighborhood, for any community, are the people there.

the folks who, day in and day out, are doing the work and raising families and participating in the community and through their churches and faith institutions are trying to provide that optimism and that lift and the young people who are here, you're the game changers because what you're studying and your ability to then apply that learning, that's going to make a difference. the love we put into our families and our communities every day, and embracing the joys of citizenship and participation, that's what is a game changer. that's what makes a difference. now, i won't deny i can help a little bit. [laughter] i can maybe make a little bit of difference. today i want to talk about what we can do as a country to reward hard work and keep the economy going and make sure that new jobs and opportunities exist. the good news is, right now we're on a 60-month streak of private sector job creation. 60 months. that's five years. that's a long time. [applause]

we created 12 million new jobs. nationwide the unemployment rate has fallen, when i came into office, that first year it was 10%. now it's 5.5%. there are more job openings than any time since 2001. meanwhile, our high school graduation rate is up. at an all-time high. more than 16 million americans have gained the security of health insurance. [cheers and applause] we're producing more energy than ever before. oil and gas, but also wind power and solar power and meanwhile lower gas prices should save a typical family this year about $700. and the good news is, wages are even on the rise again. and that's going to help a lot

of families. it's been a long, hard road, but thanks to the hard work of the american people, america's coming back. so the question now is, where do we go from here? do we accept an economy where just a few people do really, really well or are we going to keep building an economy that generates opportunity for everybody? who is willing to work? and what i believe is, is that america does best when the middle class does best. and when ordinary folks who maybe were born into poverty are able to climb their way into the middle class. that's good for everybody. the economy grows best not from the top down but from the bottom up. and from the middle out. so, what we've been pushing is what i call middle class economics. the idea that the country does

best when everybody's got a fair shot. everybody's doing their fair share. everybody's playing by the same rules. and we want not only everybody to share in america's success but contribute to it. because we know that if you feel the team and only half the folks get to play, that team will be less successful. if everybody is playing a part that team's going to be more successful. so what does middle class economics mean in this new economy? it means that every american has to have the tools to get ahead. in a fast-paced, constantly changing global economy, that means that we've got to make sure that working families feel more secure. that their paychecks can go a little farther. that they're getting things like paid leave and child care. not as luxuries but because they help support families. that we treat those things as priorities for working moms and working dads.

it's time to follow the example of states and cities and companies that are raising america's minimum wage. that will make a difference. [applause] it means preparing americans to earn good jobs and higher wages, which means every child getting a great education at the earliest age. making college more affordable so young people can afford to go to college without getting burdened with debt. [cheers and applause] it means working with businesses to provide apprenticeships and on-the-job training. i want to bring down the cost of community college down to zero. [cheers and applause] two years of community college should be as free and universal as high school is today. if we've got the best trained work force in the world, then businesses will come to alabama, they'll come to birmingham they'll come to america, and we will succeed.

[cheers and applause] middle class economics means building the most competitive economy anywhere. so we can keep churning out high wage jobs for the workers to fill. i want to put more people back to work. rebuilding our roads and our bridges. modern ports. faster trains. faster internet. we should invest in those things. they pay off. many times over. i want to invest in basic research so that jobs and industry for the future take root here, because we've invented new products and new services and innovative. and we can pay for these investments without blowing up our deficits. we just need to reform our tax code so it helps middle class families get ahead instead of letting folks who already got a lot get ahead. [cheers and applause] and i have to say, these ideas are not about ideology.

the reason i propose these ideas is because we know they work. now, let me talk about washington for a second. [laughter] let me just talk about washington for a second. the good news is that today the house of representatives passed a bill. no, no. you think i'm joking. i'm not. [laughter] it was a bipartisan bill designed to make sure that doctors in our medicare system get paid on time, that the children's health insurance program continues to work. i called the speaker, john boehner, and the democratic leader, nancy pelosi, and i said, congratulations. this is how congress is supposed to work. they came together, they compromised.

they had a good idea. they didn't get everything they wanted. they passed a bill. now the senate hopefully will pass the bill and now i'll get to sign it and the american people will be better off for it. i thought, this is great. let's do more of this. let's make it happen. so i want to give john boehner and nancy pelosi credit. they did good work today. and they deserve credit, the house of representatives deserves credit for that. [applause] so that was the good news. [laughter] the bad news is the republicans in congress unveiled their budget and it represents the opposite of middle class economics. because it would hand out new tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, let taxes go up for students and working families, because it would eliminate their tax credits on a variety of things, it would cut

investments in education to the lowest level since the year 2000. it would double the number of americans without health insurance. and so, you look at it and say well, what are you trying to solve with this budget? they say the reason they wanted this budget is because we've got to do this to eliminate deficits and debt. keep in mind, the deficits came down by 2/3 since i became president. [cheers and applause] it's come down by 2/3. and the budget i put forward would continue to keep deficits low. but let's take them at their word. they said they wanted to reduce the deficit. before the ink was even dry on the budget that they put forward, that was already full of tax cuts for folks at the top, they rolled out their next big economic plan, which was another huge tax cut for folks at the top. this one would cost $250

billion, it would apply only to the top .1% of americans. in alabama this new tax cut they're proposing -- i got to laugh, because it would average $2 million per person in tax cuts and it would apply to less than 50 people per year here in alabama. so, 50 people would get an average tax break of $2 million. not 50,000 people. 50. fiddy. now -- [laughter]

what would lead you, when you're saying you're concerned about the deficit, what would lead to you put in your budget and then propose right after your budget something like that? i mean, they look at the budget, they already have tax cuts for the wealthy, for millionaires and billionaires, and they say, you know what we forgot to put in here, another deficit-busting tax cut for the top .1% of americans, that's what's really going to move the country forward, is that what they were thinking? i guess. [laughter] i don't think our top economic priorities should be helping a tiny number of americans who are already doing really, really well. and then asking everybody else to foot the bill. and keep in mind, one of the things about being president, you meet people from all walks of life. you meet folks with very modest incomes, you meet the wealthiest

people in the world. and let me just say, some of these folks at the very top, the top .1%, are wonderful people. warren buffett's a great friend of mine. they've done amazing things, they've invested. they've created businesses. they deserve great success. but they really don't need a tax cut. [laughter] and if you talk to them, they'll tell you, i already got a couple planes, i already got a boat. i already got five or six houses. i'm ok. [laughter] and the idea that you would do it at the same time as you're eliminating tax credits for students or working families that doesn't make sense. our top priority should be helping everybody who works hard get ahead. it doesn't mean everybody's going to be equal. it doesn't mean that we're going to punish people who started businesses and have taken risks. they should be rewarded. but we want to make sure everybody has a chance to do

ok. if they're working hard. and that brings me to one of the main reasons that i'm here in birmingham today. one of the main ways to make sure paychecks go farther is to make sure working families don't get ripped off. [applause] all right? and that's why we've taken action, to protect americans from financial advisers who don't necessarily have the interests of their clients at heart. that's why we've taken steps to protect student borrowers from unaffordable debt. we want them to know before they owe. it's why five years ago we passed historic wall street reform, to end this era of too big to fail. where banks on wall street, some of them would make reckless bets and everybody else would have to clean up after them.

and why we've been working to protect people so they understand mortgages and they don't buy homes they can't afford and end up in a situation not only hurting themselves, but hurting the financial system. and that's why as parts of this reform, we created an independent consumer watchdog with just one mission, and that is to look out for all of you. it's called the consumer financial protection bureau. or cfpb. now, these folks -- [applause] the cfpb hasn't been around for a long time but because of the work they've done, it's not a big agency, but they've already put over $5 billion back into the pockets of more than 15 million families. because they've taken on unfair lending practices and unscrupulous mortgage brokers and they've gotten refunds for folks and are working with state and local officials to make sure that people are protected when it comes to their finances.

because if you work hard, you shouldn't be taken advantage of. [applause] today they're taking new steps towards cracking down on some of the most abusive practices involving payday loans and title loans. [applause] now, ali was talking about this in a very personal way. i want to just break this down for folks. every year millions of americans take out these payday loans. here in alabama there are four times as many payday lending stores as there are mcdonald's. think about that. because there are a lot of mcdonald's. there are four times as many payday loan operations here in alabama as there are mcdonald's. what they'll say, the folks who

run these things, in theory, what they'll say is, these loans help you deal with a one-time expense. so your car breaks down, you got to get to work, you go there cash a check real quick, or get a quick loan, and then that's the end of it. in reality most payday loans aren't taken out for one-time expenses, they're taken out to pay for previous loans. you borrow money to pay for the money you already borrowed. before you know, it you find yourselves trapped in a cycle of debt. at first it seems like easy money. but the average borrower ends up spending about 200 days out of the year in debt. you take out a $500 loan at the rates that they're charging in some cases 450% interest, you wind up paying more than $1,000 in interest and fees on the $500 that you borrowed.

we were hearing a story from some of the advocates who were working here in alabama, a story about a family, the grandmother died. matriarch of the family. she passed away. they don't have quite enough to pay for the funeral. they go to a payday loan, borrow for the funeral, can't pay back the loan in time. the family's car gets taken away. and the two folks who are the bread winners in that family lose their jobs because they can't get to work. so what started off as a short-term emergency suddenly becomes a catastrophic financial situation for that family. and you don't need to be a mad genius to know that it's a pretty bad deal, if you're borrowing $500 and you have to pay back $1,000 in interest. so i just met with faith leaders and consumer advocates and civil

rights leaders here in alabama who are coming together to change that and i want to say that there's a bipartisan effort, you've got some very conservative folks here in alabama who recognize that they're reading their bible, they're saying, well, that ain't right. [laughter] right? i mean, they're saying, the bible's not wild about somebody charging $1,000 worth of interest on a $500 loan. because it feels like you're taking advantage of somebody. if you're lending to somebody knowing they can't pay you back and you're going to put them on the hook and just squeeze them harder and harder and harder and taking more and more money out of them, you're taking advantage of them. and so i'm very proud of the bipartisan effort here in alabama to try to change this. but i want everybody to know, they're not going to have to

fight alone. because at the federal level, the consumer finance protection bureau, the cfpb, announced today that it's going to take important steps toward protecting consumers from getting stuck in these cycles of debt. and the idea is -- [applause] the idea is pretty commonsense. if you lend out money, you have to first make sure that the borrower can afford to pay it back. don't lend somebody money if you know they can't pay it back. as americans, we don't mind seeing folks make a profit. and if somebody lends you money, then we expect you to charge interest on that loan. but if you're making that profit by trapping hardworking americans into a vicious cycle of debt, you got to find a new business model. you have to find a new way of doing business.

[applause] so this is just one more way that america's new consumer watchdog's making sure more of your paycheck stays in your pocket. and in the meantime, we're also going to be working to educate folks on how to think about their money. through consumer advocates at the local level, in high schools, we need to be teaching young people the dangers of taking out too much consumer debt. and this is one more way that wall street reform, what we passed five years ago, is protecting working families and taxpayers. and that strengthens the economy. and that's one more reason why it makes no sense that the republican budget would make it harder for the cfpb to do its job.

and would allow wall street to go back to the kind of recklessness that led to the crisis in the first place and would allow, you know, these kinds of lenders who are not doing the right thing to keep at it. i have to be clear. if republicans in congress send me a bill that unravels the reforms we've put in place, if they send me a bill that unravels wall street reform, i will veto it. [cheers and applause] and this is not about politics. it's about basic values of honesty and fair play. it's about the basic bargain that says, here in america, hard work should pay off. responsibilities should be rewarded. one of the people who i met with was reverend shannon webster birmingham's first presbyterian church. where's pastor? he's here somewhere. there he is in the back.

stand up. so everybody can see you. so, he's one of the pastors leading the effort to protect consumers here in alabama. at a public hearing a few years ago, he explained why he decided to work on this issue. when our people are trapped in debt, he said, they cannot escape and we're all hurt. we're all hurt. and that's a simple statement, but it captures so much of what it means to be an american. we are a country of rugged individuals. we don't expect folks to give us a handout, we expect people to work hard, we expect that hard work to be rewarded. if you're out there and you're working hard and start a business and do the right thing and looking after your family and not spending beyond your means, folks like that shouldn't be punished or expected to pay for everybody else. we expect everybody to be responsible.

but we're also our brother's keeper. we're also our sister's keeper. [applause] we're also a country that was built on the idea that everybody gets a fair shot. and that we put laws in place to make sure that folks aren't taken advantage of. when this country does not live up to its promise of fairness and opportunity for all people we're all hurt. when we do live up to those promises, all of us are better off. back in 2008 i came to birmingham as a candidate for this office and i said, there is nothing we cannot do if the american people decide it's time. seven years later i still believe there is nothing we cannot do if we decide it is time. we're all in this together alabama. [applause]

we've been through some tough times together. but we're coming back together. if we decide this is our time, then together we're going to write the next great chapter in this country's history. we're going to do it not just because i came to town. but because of the wonderful people in this town who are already making it happen. thank you, alabama. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ >> this sunday on q & a. eric larson on his new book, "dead wake." the story gets complicated when the question arises as to you know what ultimately happened. why was the lusitania able to

enter without escort without the kind of detailed warning that could have been provided to captain william turner but was not. this has led to speculation about was the ship set up for attack by churchill or someone? it is interesting. i found no smoking mome. believe me, i would have found a smoking memo if one existed. there was nothing on churchill or jackie fisher. let's let the lusitania go into the irish sea. nothing like that exists. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. >> jeh hohnson testified about the president's budget request

before the subcommittee on homeland security. secretary johnson was questioned extensively about the president's immigration order. this portion of the hearing is about an hour. >> all right. i'm going to call today's hearing to order. secretary, happy you're here today. glad your here to testify on the president's 16 budget before the department of homeland security.

last year you testified on a budget that was already developed at that time before you came on the job. this request however is a true reflection of your priorities. we look forward to having a robust discussion. fy 16 sbugget $41.2 billion. an increase of $1.7 billion above fiscal year 2015. mr. secretary, there is a lot to like in this request. and i have some concerns, too, but for the first time since i've been chairman, i'm pleased with many of the recommendations in your request. the request prioritizes dhs's frontline operations and personnel. it doesn't include unauthorized fees as an offset and complies with the law of funding 34,040 detention beds. with a focus on preventing

terrorism, securing the border administering immigration laws safeguarding cyberspace and strengthening national preparedness, i believe the request is a very constructive first step in the appropriations process. i would like to include $1.1 billion to protect america's borders while still allowing the flow of free trade and travel is vital to our economy. 3.3 billion to deter legal entry -- illegal entry into the united states with full funding for the 34,040 detention beds, 129 fugitive operation teams and the increased use of alternatives to detention. 4.4 billion for t.s.a. to fund screening personnel, training equipment and other resources in

support of more efficient and more traveler-friendly screening methods. and 1.9 billion for the united states secret service, a $273 million increase to improve perimeter security of the white house or better training, and to cover the costs of several upcoming events including the 2016 presidential campaign. it's worth noting that the budget propose -- this proposal mirrors recommendations made by the united states secret service protection panel. and 818 million to protect and strengthen to protect against

cyber attacks on critical information technology systems and infrastructures. funds are included to care for at least 150,000 unaccompanied children, and i look forward to hearing from you on the latest apprehension trends for whether the 162 million ting fund is required. i want to commend you for making management reform a top priority. improving decision-making processes and strengthening back ofgs office functions is never easy, yet the department is making progress under your leadership. i am pleased to see many senior level vacancies have been filled. even gao gives dhs positive marks in their latest high-risk report. so thank you and keep up the good work. for all that's good in this request, there are some problems. to begin with, 1.5 billion increase absorbs almost 75% of the non-defense discretionary

spending available under the limits of the budget control act of 2013. as a result, i doubt dhs's budget will rise as steeply as the request proposes. within fema, a new $38 million climate change is proposed as well as state and local grant programs. across all dhs components hiring front line personnel is not happening in a timely manner resulting in large carryover balances. i.c.e. and secret service aren't keeping up attrition. nppd has major staff shortages cbp continues to struggle. to hire the 2000 officers funded in fy-14, i understand only 700 are currently on board.

hiring problems doesn't just have -- doesn't have just budgetary implications. at dhs, an inadequate floor structure could lead to public national security and public safety concerns. mr. secretary, this is a problem we need to fix, and i think you're the man to do it. however, i would be remiss if i did not mention two major frustrations. last week in the press, i read that i.c.e. released 30,000 criminal aliens into the united states in communities in 2014. once again, the releases were made without notice to congress, and we don't know whether the releases endanger public safety. what really annoy me, however,

is that many illegal aliens are criminals in their country of origin would repatriate them and that's a problem. we need to fix it. in 2013, this committee was surprised by the release of approximately 36,000 criminal aliens. we had a pretty good discussion about that at the time. in 2014, dhs appropriations bill, we had language requiring the department to notify this subcommittee prior to the implementation of further releases. we had the same language in the 2015 dhs appropriations bill yet your department gave us no notice until after the fact. this committee is concerned about the department's failure to inform us as required. quite honestly, as i've told you already, i'm getting real tired

of learning about these releases in the press rather than from the department as required. and so for that reason, i'm very concerned about that. lastly, mr. secretary, you know that i'm completely opposed to the executive actions issued by a memo under your signature last december. those memos jeopardized the fy-15 conference agreement and transformed it from a law enforcement and public safety measure into a battleground for a fight between the executive and legislative branches of government. though the legitimate use of legislative process, the actions caused unnecessary decision and partisanship, and it is damaging dhs's mission to protect americans from terrorist threats

and secure the border. i directed this subcommittee staff to report to me on departmental actions that appear to violate the injunction issued by the federal district court in brownville, texas. i'm telling this to barbara, and as an attorney you know and i will that you will respect the authority of the court and that you will demand the same from your staff. with that i would like to recognize ms. roybal-allard, our distinguished member, for any comments she might make. rep. roybal-allard: thank you mr. chair. good morning, mr. secretary, and welcome. i would like to commend you for your efforts of making the homeland security more cohesive with better practices.

those kinds of capabilities are sometimes overlooked, but we understand they are ultimately the foundation for almost everything the department does and that you need to get them right. your efforts are all the more compelling because they are the beginning of long-term endeavors, the full payoff which will likely be enjoyed not by you but by your successor as secretary. we have just come through a very difficult appropriations cycle for the department. frankly, congress is not doing its job when an agency's funding remains in legislative limbo for the first five months of a fiscal year. i know the basis for that delay was the disagreement over the legality of your immigration enforcement approach, even though the federal courts are the appropriate place to sort that out. and i hope we can avoid any repeat of unnecessary delays to appropriating your funding for fy-16. fiscal year 2016 net discretionary budget requests for the department of homeland security is $41.4 billion as scored by the congressional budget oflsfice.

this is not include the additional $6.7 billion in disaster release funding that does not count towards the cap. the total is $1.7 billion above the current level. a significant portion of that increase is needed for second-year funding and step increases for cbc personnel, addressing mission panel recommendations, and other needs of the secret service and for federal cybersecurity enhancements. much of the budget requests for the department seems well justified, but there are some areas where i am concerned about cuts, particularly for the grant programs. if the committee is forced to do its work within the constraints of the budgetary cap, we will be hard pressed to address the department's needs for funding grants and other purposes for the coming year. before i close, i want to try

and frame the discussion we may have this morning about immigration. mr. secretary, we know you have a tough job to do. and perhaps the toughest part is the enforcement of our immigration laws. it is tough because it exposes a tension between values we as americans hold dear. we are a country of laws and respect for the law is paramount to our democracy and our way of life. however, we are also a country that values human life, humane treatment of every individual, and due process. we value keeping families together, protecting children, and we believe in second chances. while it is essential that we protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws, we must grant all people due process and treat them with fundamental human dignity and respect. and i hope in our discussion this morning, we can keep these american values in mind. mr. secretary, i look forward to your testimony and our discussion today, and i look forward to continuing to work with you this year in support of the department's important

missions. chair carter: at this time i'll allow and yield to mr. rogers, chairman of the full committee for an opening statement. rep. rogers: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome again to these premises. i'm pleased we finally managed to pass a full year spending bill for your department to support our men and women on the front lines and bolster our critical security agencies and fund vigilant anti-terrorism and law enforcement efforts on our home turf. i am absolutely committed to moving all 12 of our appropriations bills through the regular order process to ensure that we responsibly fund all federal agencies, including homeland.

mr. secretary, in years past, my colleagues and i have expressed disappointment in budget submissions from dhs that were political in nature, not reflective of the security needs of the country, and chock full of budget gimmicks that made our job on the appropriations committee needlessly difficult. with a few exceptions that i will highlight later, i am happy to say that i cannot make those criticisms about this budget submission after cbo scoring. the requests has a $1.7 billion increase of active levels, it includes active motions including a $9.8 million increase to support border patrol agents, and essentially level funding for coast guard operations.

request for i.c.e. includes sufficient funds for the 34,040 detention bids required under law, and you have done away with many of the unauthorized fees the department previously proposed to offset critical security spending. while this budget submission is indeed a vast improvement over those we have seen in the past it does not mean that i am left without concerns. first, and probably most important, i question whether this request constitutes a realistic funding level. unfortunately, the president's budget request governmentwide is billions of dollars above the level of our committee that we ill ultimately be allocated to support spending.

the president knows our doa here in congress. that is not responsible budgeting. and i question whether your recommended level is possible given all of the domestic priorities at stake. second, the president's executive order on immigration remains, as the chairman has said, the elephant in the room. the president's unilateral action demonstrates intentional disregard for the legislative authority of the congress under the constitution, jeopardizes the ability of this committee to move forward with appropriations for the department, poisons the well for any meaningful immigration reform package, and even jeopardizes your very well-intentioned agenda to better unify dhs' practices and policies. you have unfortunately become

the poster child for this ill-thought-out immigration policy because your department is charged with implementing it. mr. secretary, there are separation of powers in this country. and you simply cannot expect the congress to stand idly by when the president circumvents this entire branch of government. mr. secretary, i've been involved with funding for this department since it started. actually, before it started. and we take seriously our responsibilities to support our men and women on the front lines as they protect our homeland. because of the importance of the dhs mission to our country's security, we on both sides of the aisle on the appropriations committee have worked earnestly to cast politics aside and focus on the critical task at hand. it is supremely disappointing to me that the president's egregious circumvention of congress has shifted the conversation away from where it ought to be, on keeping this

country safe from threats, domestic and foreign. and making sure the men and women who protect us all stay safe. we look forward to hearing your testimony. we welcome you to the hill, sir. i yield. chair carter: thank you, mr. rogers. it is now my pleasure to recognize ms. lowey for an opening statement. rep. lowey: thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank chairman carter, ranking member roybal-allard for holding this here today and join them in welcoming you, secretary johnson. thank you for joining us. the department of homeland security is tasked with the mission of securing our nation from consistent threat. and this is no easy feat. to keep us safe, 16 different agencies and offices have to operate on a co heeshesive and

-- on a cohesive and cooperative basis. i do hope that today, and for the next few weeks and months, we can focus on that mission get to work on a comprehensive immigration bill. let's do it, let's do it now. and while we're focusing on homeland security, let's focus like a laser on the important work that you have ahead. last week at the louis armstrong new orleans international airport, a man attacked tsa agents with wasp spray and a machete after being questioned about his boarding pass. these are the risks tsa agents take every day to keep us safe. on any given day, dhs personnel will process nearly 1 million travelers entering the u.s.,

provide $3.7 million in federal disaster grants to individuals and households, patrol 3.4 million square miles of u.s. waterways, conducting 54 search and rescue missions, and seize approximately $300,000 in undetected or listed currency. yet last month, republicans took the department of homeland security to the brink of a shutdown. secretary johnson, despite what your department accomplishes for more than five months, you were forced to operate under a continuing resolution instead of having a full year funding bill. i am very pleased that eventually we passed a clean bill, fully funding dhs, and it is my hope we will move forward on a bipartisan basis and not

hold the nation's security hostage over partisan games. the fy-16 request is $41.2 billion in net discretionary budget authority, a 3.8% increase from fy-15. this includes $11.2 billion for fema with $6.7 billion for the disaster relief fund cap adjustment. it also includes $8.813 million for cybersecurity advancements a $65.1 million increase from fy-15. i was particularly pleased to see that, given the growing threat and the importance of our focusing like a laser on the cyber threat. i just want to mention one other thing in closing. while it is still too early to know what actually occurred, the chief french prosecutor handling the investigation said today that the germanwings plane was deliberately crashed by the

copilot. this should be a reminder that as global threats persist, dhs' mission must remain the same -- keep us safe. now more than ever, we must support the department in fulfilling this most essential yet complex goal. i look forward to a productive discussion this morning, and thank you very much. chair carter: thank you, ms. lowey. at this time, mr. secretary, we are going to recognize you and ask tuckedif you could to -- and ask if you could summarize what you have presented in five minutes and we have your entire testimony entered into the record. at this time i recognize you. sec. johnson: thank you chairman carter, chairman rogers, ranking member roybal-allard, congresswoman lowey, other members of the

committee, nice to see you again. let me begin by saying that you do have my full statement, and i will skbrusjust say a few things in my five minutes. first of all, as sincerely as i can, i want to thank the members of this committee who i know worked very hard to get us a full year appropriation for fy-15 and the leadership that you showed to get us there. the possibility of a shutdown of my department was very personal to me. i know people in our department who would have been affected very dramatically had we gone into shutdown. for example, there is a person in our administration who is in stage 4 cancer who depended upon her paycheck to make her co-payments for her cancer treatment. i was going to have to furlough

her if we went into shutdown. and so on behalf of the 225,000 men and women of my department thank you for your leadership in getting us a full year appropriation. like members of this committee i am very pleased by our fy-16 budget submission of $41.2 billion yet discretionary spending. i think it meets our vital homeland security missions. for me, counterterrorism remains our top priority. it is the reason this department was founded. we still live in a dangerous world. i believe the global terrorist threat has evolved to a new phase, and it is more complex and harder to detect. it relies more on independent actors, smaller scale attacks, very effective use of the internet, and actors who could strike with little or no notice in the homeland, as we have seen demonstrated in other parts of the world. there is a large threat still surrounding aviation security.

i am pleased that this submission funds our key aviation security priorities. wave of the future, we need to partner with our key counterterrorism allies abroad and in the interagency on tracking individuals of suspicion in international travel. i believe that is important. i believe we need to strengthen the security of the visa waiver program in which 38 of our allies are participants. i believe we need to ramp up countering bioextremism efforts at home. i personally participate in those efforts. cyber cybersecurity is a concern big priority of mine in this department. border security, i am pleased that total apprehensions on the southern border this fiscal year are down month to month about 20% from where they were this time last year, unaccompanied

children are down about 40% less than they were this time last year. still, there is a lot more work to do. i believe we can build a stronger border. this submission funds new technology for the border, which our border patrol personnel tell me we need. i am pleased that this submission funds those things. chairman, you and i have discussed the issue of bonding out of those convicted of crime who are in deportation proceedings. in response to questions, i am happy to talk to you about the things we have done to tighten up that process, including notification to local law enforcement when that happened. we are recapitalizing the coast guard, as you know.

this budget is part of that. we are funding the enhancements to the secret service that the independent panel has recommended, and has been noted here, we are doing a number of things to reform the way in which we manage ourselves and conduct business. we have our unity of effort initiative, which has led to greater efficiencies in the department. we have filled all the vacancies, almost all the vacancies. we will announce soon a new president's nominee for tsa administrator, who is in vetting now. we are doing things to improve the morale within the department, and as you noted, we are working to get off the gao high-risk list. gao has noted that dhs a model for government agencies and their efforts to get off the list. i have also noticed that we have received many compliments of our enhanced notes to congress despite the subcommittee over us. so gentlemen, chairmen, i

believe we're moving in the right direction in our homeland security measurements and the way we conduct business. i am happy to respond to your questions here this morning. chair carter: thank you very much, secretary. you more or less hit on an issue i was going to bring up here and now. my first question is dhs is suffering from significant backlog of vacancies, cbp, i.c.e., mppd, secret service. for example, only 700 of the 2000 cbp officers in fy-14 are on board. many officers are maxed out on overtime because there just aren't enough staff. i.c.e. attrition outpass is hiring. officers responsible for infrastructure protection and cybersecurity are almost 20% below the level funded for personnel.

i am worried about the operational components and that they are spread too thin. we are putting the department's mission at risk. furthermore, i am extremely concerned with what is happening to the hundreds of millions of dollars which congress appropriated for staffing while the people are not actually on board. what are the causes for the hiring lags? what is the average hiring time frame for law enforcement officers at dhs? how does this compare with other federal organizations like the fbi? does the current hiring process need to be changed, and if so, how? are there impediments that delay the process? sec. johnson: chairman, first of all, the new leadership team that i have at dhs is very focused on staffing at lower levels. the issue of the customs

personnel that you referred to -- you are correct that we are authorized to go up to an additional 2000 in customs personnel. we are at about 700 now. i would attribute that to two reasons. one, an issue with getting enough personnel to conduct the lie detector test. second, we had an issue with our contractor that conducts background checks. the contractor was the subject of a cyberintrusion, a major cyberintrusion, which caused a huge backlog for us and other agencies of government. notwithstanding that, we are aggressively moving forward in filling the vacancies that exist throughout the components that you mentioned. this is a priority of mine, it is a priority of the leaders. i will get back to you for the record on the average wait time to get the law enforcement positions filled and how that compares to other agencies. be happy to do that, sir. but it is something we are aggressively moving forward on. chair carter: i would appreciate

that, because we are looking at these numbers. the cbp is obviously one that flashes because that was a big issue at our airports and even on our border crossings. i had people in my office yesterday talking about that. happy we have got them. want to know where they are. so those kinds of questions -- in addition, 750 vacancies within the border patrol. 200 in the secret service. 500 in mppd. 200 investigators in i.c.e. all of this is fully funded. i think that is a real concern for us, and the question becomes, if we are not filling those positions but we funded those positions, what is happening to the money that was funded for personnel, and how is it being spent? and if you have got information about that, i would appreciate

you getting us something on that. sec. johnson: sure. chair carter: my second question has to do with something i seem to be having to talk about every day with my three subcommittees. i have got cybersecurity, and i join you and chairman mccall that we have got a major cybersecurity responsibility in this department. and the possibility of a cybersecurity breach at certain levels in this country could be catastrophic. what is the impact of the mppd cyber program if we are forced to cut programs to last year's level due to the defense function physical constraints, meaning a reduction of up to $100 million below the request? would you prioritize infrastructure protection programs ahead of cyber? sec. johnson: well, that would be hard to do.

as you know, chairman, this nation, the private sector, dot gov, is subject on an hourly basis to cyberintrusions. i read about them virtually every day. so our funding request includes a large amount for our einstein system to secure the dot gov world and to enhance in many respects our end kick facility which we use to interface with the dot com world. this is an interest of mine. dhs dealing with the private sector, and i believe we need to also move out in enhancing the hiring of our personnel. we got good legislation last year to enhance our ability to hire key personnel.

i am personally including a number of top cybersecurity experts for our department right now, making phone calls myself to bring in some good cybersecurity leaders from the private sector. i am addressing the rsa conference in california next month, something like 25,000 cyberexperts. they have asked me to be their keynote speaker. i intend to do that and take the opportunity to build trust and partnerships with the private sector. this has to be a joint effort between us and the private sector. there is something like 800 $800 million in our request for cybersecurity. i think it is key that we have that level of funding. i also believe that we need that level of funding for our cybersecurity law enforcement efforts. secret service itself has a lot of cybersecurity expertise in this area, which we need to continue to support. last month, for example, we brought to justice a major alleged cyber criminal from, i believe, russian origin. he was extradited from holland.

he was arraigned in federal court in new jersey. he was part of a ring that was stealing millions in credit card information from individuals. that was a case built by the secret service. they were the lead agency. so we need to continue to fund our cybersecurity law enforcement efforts as well. so we are moving in the right direction, but there is a lot of work to do. chair carter: i also mirror your concerns, and in discussing with the private sector what we are asking them to do, and i find i raised this issue a couple times last week because i have had to talk about cyber a lot. right now our position in this country is a defensive position. although we have offensive capabilities at the governmental level, our position is basically

defense. we are defending ourselves from attacks. and we are asking our some large and some small businesses, basically saying, you know, we can't defend everybody, so you have to build your own defense. we are going to be having these little pods of defense all over the country, and another one of our challenges is being sure that they know how to play the game so we do not end up accidentally with somebody getting so mad because they got attacked that they counterattack. it is kind of a funny thing to have to think about, but the reality is there. and some of the people who have real talent, like microsoft or dell or some other people that are out there, could make a pretty good counterattack. so that is a real challenge for you because you have got to help

challenge these people, and i guess i am just asking you to comment on the private sector relationship and how we are making that actually work. sec. johnson: three observations. one, you are correct that some sectors of the private world are way more sophisticated than others. the financial services sector is very, very good at cybersecurity. there are others in the supply chain, there are smaller businesses that are not and need to come a far way and are most in need of dhs' help. they are all reliant upon the government for information sharing so that they get the larger picture. the other thing i have observed over the last 15 months in office is even among the most sophisticated company, if an individual employee is vulnerable to an act of spearfishing, there is the intrusion right there. if the individual employee decides to open that e-mail with

the attachment from a source he does not recognize, that can lead to a major, major intrusion. i have seen that even in the most sophisticated government agencies and in the private sector. the other thing that i think is very important in terms of an effective partnership with the government is liability protection. liability protection, if a private actor shares a cyberthreat indicator with dhs that is something we support doing, providing liability protection for those who share cyberthreat indicator information with us as a carrot and an inducement for information sharing. so we wrestled with that issue for a while, and i am glad to know the administration supports it, and i believe many in congress support it as well. i think that is key to our cybersecurity legislation efforts. chair carter: i, too, support

liability protection. at this time i will yield to my colleague, ms. roybal-allard. rep. roybal-allard: i want to follow up on the cybersecurity issue, because as you know, it has significant presence in my state of california. recently, i had the opportunity to talk with many of those companies from the silicon valley to get their perspective on the department cyber security approach. what i took from those conversations is that there is definitely a lot of work that still needs to be done, especially in two areas. first, in convincing them to adopt good cybersecurity practices, which could address at least 95% of the problem, and liability protections as you mentioned.

hygiene is very, very expensive, and with regards to privacy and liability, they also expressed an uneasiness and a lack of trust of how information would be used by the government. are you satisfied, first of all, towards this effort that the office of cybersecurity and communications has the resources that it needs to fulfill its mission and that it is using the right approach to appropriate the right information flow of the government and private sector and not the other way around? also if you could also address how will the president's recent executive order on promoting private sector cybersecurity information sharing, how will that change things? sec. johnson: a couple of things. i think that the key to effective cybersecurity partnerships with the government and the private sector is building trust and a level of

familiarity with the private sector. so i spend a fair amount of time interfacing with the same kind of companies you just referred to. in silicon valley, wall street elsewhere, i have spoken to ceo's in the financial services sector in silicon valley and so forth, so building trust recruiting government officials from those industries also so that they have familiar faces that they are working with in government is key. as i mention a moment ago, liability protection is key. i believe liability protection for information sharing is also key.

the executive order the president signed in february will go a long way toward information sharing and that we are encouraging the use of information sharing private actors isao is the acronym. we encourage the use of these organizations sector by sector to serve as portals for information sharing. it is not have to be only to government with him you are sharing for cyber security. i think those things are key in the answer to your question. rep. roybal-allard: how far can we go with the private sector on cybersecurity without new liability protection legislation? what are the limits? sec. johnson: i think without liability protection, that is a significant obstacle. and i think that if we are to make significant advances here some form of liability protection provided by congress is appropriate.

and so i am a big proponent of that. rep. roybal-allard: on another subject, last november you issued a memo directing the implementation of the priority enforcement program, which took the place of secure communities. can you reiterate the impetus for establishing the program and what the status and timeline are for fully implementing this new program? sec. johnson: there are, as i understand it, something like 122 jurisdictions around this country that have enacted limitations through acts of city councils, county commissions' executive orders placing limitations on their cooperation with our immigration enforcement personnel. i think that is bad for public safety. and so we eliminated the secure

committees program, which had become controversial both politically and socially, and replaced it with the new program. the new program replaces detainers with requests for notification, which i hope solves the legal issue that is arising in litigation, and we're are indicating a defined list of priorities, a defined list of criminal offenses for which we will seek a transfer of somebody from a local or state or county jail so that we remove the controversy there. overall, i think it is key that we do a better job of focusing our resources and getting at undocumenteds who have been convicted of crimes who are in jails. there are these huge obstacles that have to be eliminated, and it requires a partnership. so the leader of i.c.e., the leader of cbp and i are on a

campaign around the country now to engage mayors, city councils, county commissioners to talk to them about the new program that we put in place so that they will come off of the barriers and limitations that they have imposed on their ability to cooperate with us. beginning next week, i am going out to meet with major city mayors. i have been talking to mayors' conferences and governorsmayors' conferences and governors' conferences about this. now i going jurisdiction to am jurisdiction to say, we've got this new program, please come off the limitations. because it is an inhibitor to go after the real criminals. rep. roybal-allard: are you surprised that the ice personnel fully understand the issue of last november and they are following that guidance with respect to the issues of

detainers and request for notifications? and do you think that state and local jurisdictions will be more willing to cooperate with these notifications? sec. johnson: the latter question first, i hope and expect that state and local jurisdictions will be more willing to cooperate with us. i think that the learning and the training with regard to our new priorities is a work in progress. i had some immigration reform groups into my office last week to talk about that issue. i heard some concerns, and we are working with our i.c.e. personnel to make sure they understand the new guidance. rep. roybal-allard: there are some suggestions recently that congress could enact a law making it mandatory for state and local jurisdictions to act on detainers from i.c.e., aside from the fact that many state and local jurisdictions would oppose such a requirement. what is your thinking of that and also the constitutionality of it as opposed to something that could be required by law? sec. johnson: i think that would be counterproductive. first of all, i think there are

constitutional issues with a federal requirement that a local sheriff or a police chief detain somebody in their jails. i also think that we would get a lot of pushback on that and it would be counterproductive to our efforts. it would be a step back. i want to encourage these people to cooperate with us and not impose that on them. i think it would be very controversial if we did that. chair carter: mr. rogers. rep. rogers: mr. secretary, at a time when the budget for other dhs components is going up, the coast guard budget would be reduced, the operations part, by 3%, acquisitions by 17%. the coast guard budget reduced by $238 million from fiscal 2015. at a time when, due to the policy changes with cuba and the

caribbean, we are seeing a higher need for cutters to interdict people fleeing cuba . for example, the drug trade continues to thrive in the caribbean. we had a discussion yesterday on this subcommittee with admiral zoocum, a commandant of the coast guard, who says he is lucky now to interdict 20% of the drug crowd coming through the caribbean. i am puzzled why we are proposing substantial cutbacks in operations, and more importantly, acquisitions up by 17% when we need more cutters out there. what can you say about it? sec. johnson: well, as you know

chairman, we are in the midst of a recapitalization of the coast guard right now. we have just completed the eighth national security cutter. this request asks for six more fast response cutters to get us to 38 of the 58 we say we need. and we are about to -- i am about to receive an affordability study on the medium-sized cutter, the offshore patrol cutter. so we are moving in the direction of revamping that whole fleet. the reason the top line is less is because with the new fleet is greater efficiency in terms of personnel. it requires fewer people to run -- to man the new fleet. the other people to man the new fleet. the other thing i will say about cuba. we saw a brief spike in migration in december. hard to know whether it was in reaction to the president's statement or not. the coast guard did respond very aggressively to that and dealt

with it, and the numbers have gone back down again in regards to the migrant flow in that part of the world off florida. the the basic answer to your question, because i have asked the same question why does the top line look les given all the -- the same question -- why does the top line look less given all the needs, greater efficiencies with the new fleet? chair rogers: i may beg to differ with you about that. i think we're shortchanging a very important part of homeland security when we do not capitalize the needs of the coast guard. secondly and quickly, secret service service, we have had numerous incidents now over a couple of years. of drunkenness by agents on duty and other misconduct, including

the latest example of the incident at the 15th street gate . that agency needs discipline. we all have the highest regard and respect for the secret service. however, some agents are tarnishing that image. it needs to be cleaned up. the director has referred the latest incident to inspector the inspector general of homeland security to investigate. i know that you have certain things you have to wait for because the ig has jurisdiction to investigate. however, the leadership of the agency and i have the highest regard for mr. clancy as an agent. i think the agency needs and outside tough administrator -- director. what is your opinion about all of that? sec. johnson: first, you are

correct the march 4th incident is under investigation. what i know about that incident so far, the facts are not all in yet, what i know about that incident makes me very upset especially given the prior string of incidents. i have seen the videotape of what happened. i have personally been to the southeast gate to look over the scene, look at the orange barrel that was moved out of the way. it upsets me. i have a lot of confidence in joe clancy to deal with the matters of discipline and instilling discipline in his rank and file. you are correct that the independent panel recommended an outsider. we had joe in place as an acting. he, to his credit, came out of retirement and came back to the secret service, an agency he

loves, to help clean this organization up. while he was acting, he made some really tough personnel choices and changes in the senior levels of people he had known for years. so that impressed me and the president as someone who has the ability to think independently and make hard choices. so we have appointed director clancy to be the permanent director. in addition, we are creating the position of chief operating officer of the secret service. that job, i want to see us -- and we are engaging in far and wide job search for somebody who has the ability and the experience to address a lot of the things the independent panel identified. the ability to put together a budget, the ability to look outside the agency for the latest developments in technology. and so the newly-created coo position, which will be at the

deputy director level, is intended for somebody who will have the outsider's perspective to be value-added to that agency. it is, in many respects, an insular thinking agency. so we need to bring in the best practices in terms of how we manage that organization. but in terms of incidents like march 4, i have a lot of confidence in joe to straighten the organization out. change does not happen overnight. it is very very important in its mission, and i think -- i think joe clancy is the right person to get us there. chair rogers: well, he didn't know about this for five days. sec. johnson: that is true. which meant i didn't know about it for five days plus. chair rogers: and found out

about it, he said, through an e-mail, rather than the chain of command. that concerns me a lot, that the agency needs discipline and it needs an outsider in some position there to be sure we are not jeopardizing the president's life by taking care of people who have been our friends for years within the service. that smacks to me that that may have happened on the latest incident. so, mr. secretary, we are looking to you to bring that agency into conformity with the highest standards with which it has been associated all these years. we must discipline that agency and make it work like it is supposed to. the importance of the job they have, to protect the life of the president of the united states among other things, demands remedy. thank you. sec. johnson: i couldn't agree more, sir. chair carter: thank you, mr.

chairman. we have five -- well, six minutes, call it six minutes until votes. i know you have that a busy schedule, you have a bunch of these things to go to. i will go ahead and go to you. >> how many have not voted over there? chair carter: they have gone. i am still here with you. >>rep. lowey: ok, our big question about fema, the security home program and the security ramp programs, we know our committee, we know how important it is

know how important the threats they face are. we want to be sure our responders have every tool available to detect and prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. yet the president's 2016 budget proposes to consolidate the four major state and local programs into a single pot, even though congress has not authorized doing so. under the proposed national prepared preparedness grant program, my first question is what guarantees can the department provide that important grant fund such as this program and the state homeland security program will be sufficient to prevent acts of terror and national disasters. what would be deemphasized under the proposed program compared to the current grant programs, for instance, would port and transit systems see fewer grant dollars if separate programs are eliminated for them? how would funds for the most at-risk areas be safe guarded under the budget request? sec. johnson: ma'am, as i think you know, this is a -- the

consolidation question is one we discuss every year. our view -- i know it's mr. it is administrator fugate's view to administer grants at the state level so the governors can best assess what is appropriates for their states. congress makes its own judgments in that regard every year. as i am sure you know, this year, with regard to the awassi grants, we had language that say s we should distribute it in a way so that up to 85% of the risk and only up to 85% of the risk is satisfied with grant making. so we are working through that now. the formula for how we get there is one that i have a lot of interest in.

i want to make sure we are getting right. because i have been out in major cities, and i have seen the end use that is being made with regard to our grant money. for example, in fenix, for the -- in phoenix for the super , bowl. three days before the super bowl, i looked at our ops center, the joint ops center state, federal, local, the sheriff, or fire chief was anxious to point out to me every single piece of communications equipment, every camera and tv screen you see was funded by the department of homeland security through our grant making. a lot of the things you see on scene at the boston marathon bombing, the first responders, the equipment they used, the vehicles were funded by our department.

i have seen the end uses of the grant money and state grant money. i know how valuable it is. one of the reasons because i hear from state and local officials about the importance of this to them. it is something i know -- i want to be sure we get right. given how the terrorist threat is evolving, it is all the more important that our state and local jurisdictions be adequately funded, homeland security, what i like to rever refer to as hometown security equipment. the threat is local-based. very often you could have an actor lurking in a local community without notice to our national security community. the grant making in my view has become all the more important. unfortunately, while we were on

a cr for five months, as you know, we were unable to do that. now that we are on a full year appropriation, we can turn the spigot back on again. we turn to announce how we plan to use our awassi funds very very soon and i think we've made the appropriate judgments there. rep. lowey: i know my local recipients feel very strongly this funding is absolutely essential. i appreciate your attentiveness to it and you can be sure we'll all look at it very closely. thank you very much. chair carter: i'm waiting for someone to take the chair so we can continue. we can continue. sec. johnson: judge, if you need to take a break, i can wait. i understand the need to go vote. chair carter: ok. i need to go vote. if you'll wait on us.

there is someone who can take the chair and i will vote. we have to wait for a democrat when ms. lowey leaves. you may take a little break. she's on her way. ok. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] announcer: today, the bipartisan policy center posted a panel on voting. they talked about the report examining voting technology voter registration, data sharing, and other issues. see it live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on shantou. -- on c-span2. today, the alliance for health reform hosts a discussion on the sustainable growth rate or sgr of medicare. the acting deputy director will

be among the experts taking part in the conversation. live coverage at noon eastern on c-span2. here are some of our featured programs for this week and the c-span networks. on c-span2's bootktv, on "after words," author peter wallison said government housing policies caused the 2008 crisis. and jeffrey sachs, director of the earth institute, on corruption and environmental decay. and on american history tv on c-span3, a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr. then sunday afternoon at 4:00 on "reel americo," the 1965 "meet the press" interview with martin luther king jr. find out complete television

schedule on c-span.org, let us know what you think of the programs you are watching. all us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet @cspan, #comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. live today on c-span "washington journal" is next. at 1:00 p.m., outgoing fda commissioner margaret hamburg talks about the lessons she has learned while at the agency. coming up in an hour, green wire legal reporter jeremy j acobs previews supreme court cases on whether the epa should inquire costs before putting in strict standards. later, ian tuttle discusses the

future of fraternities. and at 9:20 a.m., a roundtable discussion on union membership in the u.s. with michael horrigan host: the senate has finished its work before a two-week break. they passed a budget. a the next step is reconciliation. it's been a busy week. ted cruz announced for president. there is a lot of unrest in the middle east. budgets were passed i the house and senate. those are some of the news stories we will be tal