i want the truth. who ordered a $215 million expense -- expenditure of renovations using the taxpayers money? not 215ray: it is million dollars. we have corrected the record on that numerous times. second, i have ms. wagner: you are saying you gave the authorization. mr. cordray: i was not in the place of the time. ms. wagner: reclaiming my time. it is unbelievable that you won't discuss who authorized it. it really makes me question how else this esp the spends its money. the answer to both questions was no. mr. cordray: congress set up that. ms. wagner: i'm not finished.

how does this work? you send the federal reserve an invoice and as long as it doesn't hit the caps set by dodd frank it is set automatically? >> you and your colleagues in the congress, they enacted that law and were carrying it out. >> 10 minutes are left in the first vote. we anticipate clearing one more question from the gentleman from kentucky. mr. barr is recognized. mr. barr: i will just follow up on that question regarding the funding. , youur semiannual report say that the director of the cfp inrequests transforms amounts he has determined are reasonably necessary to carry

out the bureau's mission. what was with the transfer requested? what you anticipate it being in at 416? in fyrdray: are published 2016 is for $606 million. mr. barr: does the fed approve that budget? the budget has to be within the parameters. does the fed approve that budget? total, particulars? mr. cordray: if we were seeking to obtain more than our cap that would not be -- mr. barr: otherwise they do not approve the budget. ever -- or has the fed ever reviewed the bureau's transfer request? mr. barr: i believe

-- mr. cordray: i believe they do. mr. barr: it is as simple as that. the fed has never asked any questions about that transfer. mr. cordray: i don't deal with the details with the back and forth. mr. barr: they've never asked any questions about that transform request. mr. cordray: i would not know what to say to that. mr. barr: has the fed ever denied a particular transfer request? mr. cordray: all of our requests have been within the bounds of the law. mr. barr: they have never vetoed a particular allocation of an expenditure. systemdray: that is the established by congress and we are carrying it out. mr. barr: the fed is not involved in the implementation of the bureau's budget. that is the point. that is our concern frankly. the fact that the bureau has been able to move forward with a $200 million luxury renovation to its headquarters, pays the

average bureau employee more than members of congress which support the conclusion the fed is a rubberstamp to your expenditures and we would hope since you are not accountable to the congress or subject to the appropriations process, a fundamental flaw in the dodd frank law, we would hope it would be accountable to the source of your funding. mr. cordray: several things are inaccurate you just described. [indiscernible] mr. barr: let's talk about the arbitration rulemaking and study we asked about in that letter. your response to our letter did not answer our actions about the deficiencies. mr. cordray: i think it would depend on the individual arbitration. arbitration can result in a faster more expedited

resolution for the consumer? was there any date that can be less expensive for a consumer? mr. barr: depending on the matter. some cases it goes to arbitration. mr. barr: there was data to support that. i don't know what a more effective way would be. mr. barr: you have said you have a duty to enforce the law, the dodd frank law. here is what the dodd frank law says the rule must be in the public interest for the protection of consumers and consistent with the study. can study shows arbitration sometimes and in many cases be in the best interest of the consumer in terms of faster resolution, a better result. i would encourage the bureau to not move forward with a rule that is inconsistent with the benefits of arbitration.

did the bureau in preparing the study cornet with the american association for justice? mr. cordray: i don't know who that is. mr. barr: the trade association for class-action lawyers. the bureau cites a study by a professor that purports to analyze consumers knowledge of whether financial agreements complain that contain an arbitration clause. do you not how his study was funded? it was funded by the american association for justice, that is a conflict of interest that you have. you're using data from a study funded by the class-action plaintiffs bar. mr. cordray: we took input from all stakeholders. >> are now -- [indiscernible]

>> without objection. submitgislative days to additional questions which we forwarded to the witness for his response. we will have you five legislative days to submit extraneous materials for inclusion. this hearing stands adjourned.

>> later this afternoon we will have more live coverage from the road to the white house with ted cruz holding a press conference near the u.s. border with mexico in douglas, arizona speaking ahead of the presidential primary next tuesday. attake you to douglas live 4:45 eastern time. a look at our primetime schedule

starting at 8:00 eastern. ashton carter on u.s. defense policy and national security issues here on c-span. naacp willnt of the talk about civil rights and criminal justice reform. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. he is interviewed by

victoria tenzing. >> it seems obvious the government can't regulate the money you use to participate in a constitutional right. it simply says since you have a right to free speech, in politics, during campaigns, -- but you can't spend money on speech, using your constitutional right. book onaura bush's lives of afghan women. go to book tv.org for the complete schedule. weekend on c-span 3

programs that tell the american story. some highlights include saturday evening at 8:00 eastern. at 10:00 p.m. unreal america in september of 1963, two months prior to his death, president kennedy promoting conservation of natural resources. >> george mcgovern and reverend jesse jackson. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org.

>> next, a look at the u.s. visa waiver program. officials testified before a senate committee on security andtfalls in the interview background process and vetting of refugees applying for asylum in the united states. the hearing ran one hour 45 minutes. >> good morning. come toring will go order. i want to thank the witnesses for your time and testimony. and appearing here before us today. we have representatives from the state department, the u.s. citizen immigration services, u.s. immigration's customs enforcement. you will be hearing those acronyms. a lot of acronyms in this business. -- john roth, the hearing is about the security every u.s. visa systems

and programs. so many of the terrorists that killed so many americans were here on student these is. the fact of visa overstays. had then we obviously state department involved in , orting and applications acceptance of granting the zones. we also had immigration naturalization services. you basically had one agency. we took that apart and set up the department of homeland security. now we have different agencies. i think it is a legitimate question to ask, are these agencies working together? do we have a shared purpose? tohared goal, shared mission

keep the nation safe. allow for travel, allow for commerce. do making sure we can everything in an imperfect world to keep our nation safe and secure. that is my primary question and the main purpose of this hearing. are we doing all we can to screen and that these applicants. i would ask my written remarks be in the record with consents. it is been kindly granted. i will turn it over to senator carper. thank you for the hearing. thank you for joining us.

we appreciate very much your service. but this hearing is the third in a series we bow to explore whether we are doing enough with u.s. concerns that terrorists will infiltrate our country. we learned the u.s. refugee resettlement process involved extensive security screening. syrian refugees undergo multiple rounds of screening over an average of 18-24 months including interviews and counter officials trained in spotting fraud.

once became clear that the paris terrorist held passports who enjoyed visa waiver privileges this could posix security threat understandably. these a waiver travelers seeking to come to the u.s. endured nearly the same level of security vetting is all other travelers. when it comes to security nothing is being waived. the name of the program correctly suggests that. countries must share intelligence with the u.s.. the must open counterterrorism and aviation security systems to our inspectors and abide by our standards for aviation and passport security. as a result is a key counterterrorism tool. it started off as a travel facilitation program and having enormous advantages to us in terms of protecting our

security. going to continue looking at our screening systems and examine the depth of security for all forms of visas whether they be for students, tourists, people in business or those seeking to make american their permanent home. it is a daunting overtaking -- undertaking. it involves multiple government entities. the state department, department of homeland security and others that are not of this in the tier today. since the 9/11 attacks there have been notable changes to strengthen our visa security including the attacks in paris and san bernardino. 'growing presence they are looking for ways to expand social media to screen travelers seeking to enter the u.s.. i look forward to hearing about more of these efforts.

we need to know if this program is adding real security and if so how to expand its reach. and with all of our recent hearings i expect we will find elements that we could improve upon today, understanding we could never eliminate our risks. we should not turn our backs on the benefits of trade, travel and immigration. improve theuously security of immigration we must keep our eye on that pressing threat of homeland terrorism, homegrown terrorism. probably due to strengthen our they maygroups no bypass our multiple layers of homeland security by using online propaganda to recruit people already inside of our borders, maybe foreign here to carry out attacks. twisted traded -- propaganda to carry out violence to combat long arm terrorist is

the home lined -- homeland. we look forward to our continued work on this committee in combating homeland homegrown terrorism and sleeping security of immigration systems. hope we can use the hearing to find commonsense sense improvements. thank you for being here. thank you senator carper. i appreciate the flexibility. the visa waiver program are important programs for our economy but also of concern. in your opening statements if you could address the security of the programs you have, if you need additional tools that you don't have that would require this committee to take action, and man power. do you have the manpower to carry out the job to make sure our country is not a threat with

the visa program we have now. if you can do that you can answer all of my questions. mr. carper: that was under a minute. rise and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony will get before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? please be seated. witness is mr. david donoghue, principal deputy for the council affairs of youth department of state. he has served as the assistant secretary of state for visa services and has coordinated for interagency provincial affairs in afghanistan. secretary donoghue. morning. you for this opportunity

to testify today on the topic of u.s. visa program security. the department agencies throughout the federal government take our commitment to protect american borders and citizens seriously. we constantly analyze and update our clearance procedures. describes statement the screening regimen that applies to all of these categories. let me begin by saying the visa , focus on layered national security. beginning with the petition to uscis come my colleagues here and these applications threat -- during the interview prior to travel, upon arrival in the united states and while the traveler is in the u.s. are communities working together to protect our borders. the vast majority of these applicants and all immigrants and fiancé applicants are

interviewed. each officer completes extensive a strongwhich has emphasis on border security, fraud prevention, interagency intervening and techniques. it brings antiterrorism expertise to the visa process. visa applicant data is vetted against databases and including terrorist identity database that include millions of records of individuals found in eligible for these us. fingerprintnger scans. visa applicants are screened against photos against

applicants. concernsrviewed raises , or the inner agency screening process shows potentially disqualifying derogatory information the officers suspends processing and submits a request for a washington-based interagency security advisor opinion review. the department of homeland security's patriot program and visa security program managed by provides colleagues additional protections in certain overseas post. immigrations, coasters and special agents assigned to high threat locations provide on-site vending of these applications and other law enforcement support. security reviews do not stop when the visa is issued. continuouslyies

match new threat information with our record of existing visas and we use our authority to revoke visas. we refuse more than one million applications a year. since 2001 the department has visas based on information that surfaced after issuance of the visas. this is shared across the inner agency in near real time. i notice you wanted to talk about our view of the security of the program. while that is managed by the department of homeland security, we believe it does enhance our national security, and allows us to focus on those places to have ,taffing and resources in place

cooperative agreements with the nations sending these travelers to the united states, we have better access and understanding of the threats they are saying and sharing with us. we have a very close relationship with canada showing information across the border to have a strong outer border for the united states. mr. chairman, the department of state has no higher priority than the safety of our fellow citizens and the security of the traveling public. every visa decision is a national security decision. we appreciate the support congress has given us as we work to strengthen our defenses. i encourage you when you are traveling overseas to visit our sections to see the work that our officers are doing around the world. i look forward to your questions.

>> thank you secretary donna who. our next witnesses mr. rodriguez. prior to this position he has served as the director of the office for civil rights, justice.t of director rodriguez. mr. rodriguez: good morning. time beforeecond this committee to talk about this subject matter and the six time i have testified for some congressional committee in this fiscal year on this subject matter. this committee has become one of my favorites, particularly because the level of discourse has always been simple and intelligent. not that the questions are easy. the questions are hard once we need to be able to answer for

the benefit of the mecca and people. i do appreciate the it town you have set here -- the tone you have said here. i believe that a healthy and robust immigration and travel system is critical to our economy, critical to the stability of families and critical to the successful conduct of our foreign policy and national security. i believe the most fundamental responsibility of government is to protect the public safety. i have spent a fair part of my career working at the local level. i have learned every time we issue a drivers license we need to make sure we are issuing that a badeone who may be driver. every time we issue immigration benefits we need to do everything we can to ensure security of our country and that those who mean us harm who who

become threats to public safety do not exploit immigration system. bearsticular, uscis responsibility for screening refugees who will seek admission to the united states. since september 11 we have admitted 790,000 refugees. i would hasten to add 120,000 of those have come from iraq. single time not a admitted refugee has actually engaged in an act of terrorist violence against the united states. there have been a number of relatively small terrorists plots or attempts to affiliate with terrorist organizations that have been successfully disrupted by united states law enforcement. the reasons why we have been successful is the screening process that exists to screen those who were coming to the united states. it is a multilayered process

involving a multitude of cabinet agencies, law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and involves intensive interviews conducted by several agencies, in particular by my officers who are intensively trained to do the work that they do. nonetheless, recognizing evolving threats, those posed by lone wolves inspired by terrorist organizations, we continue to look for opportunities to intensify and strengthen the quality of the work we do. one area of focus has been our review of social media, particularly those seeking admission as refugees in order to determine whether there is any derogatory information contained therein. we have undertaken several pilots to identify automated tools and processes which will enable us to do this work. we have not waited for the conclusion of those pilots to

begin actively using that as part of our work. in those cases where individuals have been flagged as of a concern among certain refugees streams we have in analyzing social media to determine whether such information exists. capacityontinue to add in this area. we will continue to strengthen our ability to do that and we will add more volume based on our assessment and intelligence community partners assessment of where the highest levels of risk are. ,o respond to your question senator tester, we are working to get to the point where we actually can't answer your question. where we can identify the resources and personnel we need. needless to say our agency is a fee funded agency. a majority of work is funded by our fee paying customers. a lot of that is done in concert with various tax-based partners

in law enforcement and we will look forward to a further conversation should we identify needs as we develop these processes. finally i look forward to inressing concerns raised the ig report. i would note a couple of findings. theof our customers in early going of roy nine d, a replacement green card launch reported they were satisfied with the service we provided. i would note the ig recognizes after july 2015 the conclusion of the audit window, we undertook a number of improvements. i would ask for the ig to come back and to engage with this community, this committee about those improvements so we can give you the confidence that in fact our automation process is successful and is poised for greater success in the future. thank you for having me here

today. mr. carper: thank you -- mr. johnson: thank you mr. rodriguez. speaker previously served as united states attorney for the northern district of texas. >> good morning. senator tester, i'm having nightmares from seeing that buffalo or bison head in your office? i'm sure i will get over it. all seriousness i appreciate opportunity to talk about this subject. withee with my colleagues respect to the importance of this issue and these issues and appreciate what we hear from the inspector general with respect to our programs and improvements recommended and to your

questions and suggestions with respect with how we can do our jobs better. congress authorized our role in this process in 2002 where we were told to assign agents to review visa security activity and provide training and other assistance to our state department colleagues. >> under this program we have analysts and agents working at 26 issuing posts in 20 countries.

process begins and ends obviously with the department of state with the significant involvement of citizenship. this process prisons the first opportunity to assess whether potential visitor immigrants poses a threat to our country. that is where ice comes in.

patriots which the deputy assistant secretary just mentioned begins our visa screening mission by conducting a first take, automated screening of visa application against our vast holdings. patriot takes a risk-based approach and uses resources from attentional mass security threats. show we haveorts agents posted at those visa screening sites. and, those agents are able to investigate these information

that comes up in the andications, supplement identify unknown threats. we are pleased to have those people. our agents reviewed 2 million visa applications, over 2 million. we determined there were 64,000 of them for further review. this is a flag that goes up, that something is indicating to the agent who was well trained in criminal activity and other derogatory information. after in-depth adding the next step, we determined the existence of a little over 7000 of 23,000 cases in which we saw derogatory information that had access to terrorism. resulting in our recommendation to refuse visas to 8600 last year.

approximately 850 terrorist database records were created or enhance. while i am extremely proud of have on thelicants front side, we worked identify and initiate against senator johnson mentioned earlier. in the last two years isis has agentted 650,000 special hours to overstay enforcement. ice prioritizes cases the risk-based analysis. leads andf many further investigate them and referred them to others on the

er side if we are unable to do anything with them on the investigative side. we are very proud to include both sides of our house in this effort. we have actually had increased the investigative responsibilities of our er folks and i look forward to working with this committee and appropriations committee to discuss pay reform with respect to our entire workforce. i stand ready to answer any questions you may have. mr. carper: thank you. our final witnesses, john roth. mr. roth served as director of the criminal investigations at the food and drug administration. he had a 25 year career as a federal prosecutor in the department of justice. >> thank you. .anking member carper thank you for inviting me here

today to discuss my oversight of dhs visa programs. audit work has involved results. uscis employees 19,000 people to process millions of applications for immigration benefits. they are required to enforce highly complex laws, regulations and internal policies which can be subject to different interpretations. they are excited to process decisions within a reasonable timeframe. accomplish their mission while working in an antiquated system of paper-based files more suited to an office environment then 2016. the system creates inefficiencies and risks to the program free to give you an idea of the scope of the program, they spend $300 million per year shipping, storing, and handling 20 million immigrant files.

we published our sixth report on efforts to transform its paper-based processes into an automated system. we undertook this audit to answer relatively simple questions. what has been the outcome of uscis efforts to automate benefits processing? we focus on the progress made and performance outcomes. we interviewed dozens of individuals including traveling to local field locations and talking to over 60 end users and stood next to them and watch as they struggled with the system. we found uscis has made little progress transforming its process into an automated one. previous efforts cost $500 million to implement had to be abandoned in favor of a new system. it will take more than three years in additional billion dollars to automate them for processing. cips fromprevent

achieving goals. currently two of 90 different types of application forms are online for filing. we found the time to process immigration benefits was twice that of the metrics c i.s. had established. using electronic files and use of the time actually took twice as long as using paper files. that reflected user dissatisfaction with the system that often took between 100 150 mile cliques to move among sub levels to complete a specific process. acknowledge it has recently taken significant steps to improve the process by which new technology including moving from a traditional development methodology to a new incremental approach called agile will assist.

implementation of automation is very much a moving target. uscis may have made progress on the problems since the time of our fieldwork ended. we will continue to monitor the situation and report back to the committee is necessary. separately, we compare databases belonging to ice and found that no human traffickers were using unification and visas to bring victims into the country. the data systems c i.s. uses do not capture important information valuable in investigating human trafficking. this poses risks to the system. we may 3 recommendations. are taking action to resolve these and we are satisfied so far. corrupt and illegal activity can pose a risk to the visa process.

i written testimony list several examples where employees were able to compromise the system to provide benefits to those who were not entitled to them. this presents significant risks that can only be countered through continual vigilance. the size and complexity of the mission coupled with an archaic method of assessing applications bring significant risk. it makes it more difficult for uscis to accomplish its mission. there was a risk to our national security. basic information on visa applicants is not captured in an electronic format and cannot be used to inform basic steps. this concludes my prepared statement. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you mr. roth. in my opening comments i was talking about missions, goals of

different agencies. we have a simple one. to enhance the economic and national security of america. pretty all-encompassing. one of the problems we have with visa programs, you have conflicting goals. on the one hand, we want to facilitate travel. customer service. the other hand, we want to ensure the security of the homeland to keep america safe. there is tension there. have aur organization simple mission statement like this committee does? can you tell us what it is? >> we have a number of different ways. i have been very clear with our staff and communications to the entire staff that articulate a set of simple principles. qualifiedindividual

immigration benefit. they should get that benefit in an efficient and appropriate manner subject to national security and fraud prevention. that is a key element of our draft. and subject to operational feasibility. of whatever initiatives we are taking. the first thing you talked about was providing benefits to your customers. the way i interpret that, that is the first part of your mission. customer service providing business to immigrants of this country subject to security. to nodriguez: subject small way to be given to that, to national security and public safety. in other words, our staff

understands this is evidenced in 800, 900that roughly staff members are specifically dedicated to fraud. if an individual poses a threat they are denied the benefit, to be very clear. mr. johnson: you have a simple mission statement for your agency. ensure the national security and public safety of our country through the enforcement of immigration and customs laws. statutes. 400 but we are game. mr. johnson: it's a big mission. it's a serious undertaking. the results of 9/11 and the what they were talking about what the stove pikes. you got these entities split. that.ncerned about

director rodriguez, are you aware of what happened at the bernardino onsan december 3 following the san bernardino attack? are you aware of the events? mr. rodriguez: i'm not specifically aware. honestly know. mr. johnson: are you aware of that? ms. saldana: you are referring to our hsi office. i am aware of that. >> can you describe what happened? it is under your jurisdiction? can you understand what you are aware. ms. saldana: with respect to the whole san bernardino incident. mr. johnson: no your agent showing up at the office of u.s.

cif's. you are not aware of that? ms. saldana: that i'm not aware of. that he showed up at cips? -- see i.s.? was -- theez: there intent all along among our staff was to provide that information. it was a matter of completing a short process. mr. johnson: let me describe. this was from an internal memo written by our committee. at approximately 12:00 december that fbi informed hsi field interview agents learned wereez and his wife

scheduled for a meeting at the u.s. citizenship and immigration onvices office for the noon december 3. hsi contacted special agent requesting a team of armed ages to respond to the office to detain marquez and tell an interview team could be dispatched. wouldecial agent informed not let agents in the building. the officer in charge of the office would not allow those asians in the building. the special agent learned marquez did not show up for the meeting. the special agent requested copies of the file. the special agent was allowed to take a photo containing that

file. it happened on december 3. ,o, we had a team armed potentially dealing with a terrorist. they had a tip from the fbi that mr. marquez might be at the chargeand the agent in wouldn't allow hsi into the building and would not give them the a file. supposedly the top concern is the security of the nation. can you explain that? that theeen told decision not to let hsi in came from higher up. mr. rodriguez: that much is not correct. consulted the fact

was to facilitate the absence that hsi wanted to take. unfortunately this was all as the situations do evolving quickly. havearily we don't situations where law enforcement comes into in office to affect an arrest. theyan you explain wouldn't allow agents in there when they are saying you could have a potential terrorist here involved in what just happened yesterday in the slaughter of 14 americans? how could that happen? mr. rodriguez: the point here is that we operate according to certain protocols. the individual was seeking guidance from higher is up. the guidance was to facilitate what hsi was trying to accomplish. it happened so quickly that it was incorrectly perceived that

our folks were trying to in some white obstruct what ice was trying to do. we need to make protocols so that doesn't occur, that may well be something we need to do. there was never an intent to prevent them. mr. johnson: it sounds like they were prevented. can you explain this? what do you know about it? ms. saldana: i will say in all honesty i had a similar reaction when i first heard of the incident. we do forget the number of law enforcement and other people involved in this incident, the confusion and chaos going on in san bernardino. we had immediate conversations when it came to my attention. i'm having a hard time or memory exactly. i believe it was the same day. of andtaken care clarified immediately and we did get information we needed. i am with the director.

we can always do things better. if we don't, as i tell my son, learn from the mistakes we made then shame on us. i believe he and i meet often. mr. johnson: just putting myself in the position of individuals at uscis, if i had a day after a terrorist attack and i had 18 armed coming into my office and said we believe somebody involved is in your building, we want to come in and i would have said, on him. they're what have been a question in my mind. it is quite puzzling. >> my first question, he looks very familiar over your right shoulder in the front row. name may be jason. i think he used to work here and sit behind us here on this

podium. ms. saldana: we spend a lot of time together. mice to see you. thank you for your service. a couple of you alluded to one aphorisms.ct if it isn't perfect, make it better. how do we move from a paper process to an electronic process? about a project that was abandoned maybe within the last year. i think you said $500 million. somehought there had been audit. i heard the word agile mentioned as an acronym. help make some sense for me. we know to the extent that we

and makee paperwork them electronic, often times it provides better service and security. how would this have done that? how are we fixing it now? think theuez: so i question refers to me. to everybodyown here including this committee that there were a number of falses and protracted starts with their automated process. we were using what was sort of an antiquated development bycess which was directed one outside entity. we have since migrated to this process which has multiple contractors competing against one another. stepsinks the development

that we can develop a particular the, test it, trite in field, make corrections as we need then move on and try to do everything all at once. to understand the timelines here , the first generation was the waterfall generation. there was a second generation called alice. we began the third generation in march of last year which was about a month before the inspector general audit began. we launched the i 90, a replacement green card that incorporates a number of critical functionalities which will be used for other applications.

we have 16% of her overall business. what we have done so far certainly am a perspective is working well. the number of concerns that are internal employees had either reflected the older generation or are things that reflected what that early time was when we first launched the i 90 application. many issues have since been not only resolved but resolved well. i would like to invite the ig to come back to scrutinize further what we are doing. by the end of this year we will have 30% of the business on alice. including our most complex forms. i have some other questions. thank you for the explanation. inspector general roth, quick reaction from what you are hearing?

certainly. what we did is we win out to where the work is being done and talk to the uscis employees confronted with the system they have. and the level of frustration which is reflected as far as the glitches and pickups in the wereut of the report significant. we were able to isolate that into a few root causes. that there was a lack of user engagement. the folks in the field did not feel that they were being listened to and engaged in in the development of this software . the testing was not done in an end-to-end basis. testing was done sporadically of certain elements of the software but not done in a complete way. and the technical support was lacking. the process means you put out a minimum viable product. you improve that product as you go.

it isx the car while running to use an analogy. we thought the testing was insufficient. the rollout was to same. and the user experience, the folks using it were highly frustrated with the system. those issues, user engagement, technical support or the same things we had seen in the the $500version, million one that had to be scrapped.

>> so we have that under our

current authorities, and we have no problem using it with when the case indicates a need to. >> all right. same question. how do you folks use social media when you vet and screen these applicants and what challenges have you encountered? >> we've used social media for a while. it's in our regulation. we use it to -- when, again, as donna said, we use it when we see that there's a reason to look further into the case. we're now doing a pilot program in countries of concern to find out how effective that can be.

>> okay. thanks, everyone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in january sarah root was killed in omaha by an illegal alien who was street driving while drunk. this was not the first time he had been arrested for driving drunk and after he was arrested for the incident, he posted bail. prior to being released from jail, however, local police contacted ice and requested he be detained because of his immigration status. ice refused and said that would not be consistent with the president's immigration executive actions. he disappeared. if an illegal alien kills an american, should ice let that person go free?

>> go free? well, there will be criminal consequences. >> we don't know where the man is. >> right. and, sir, i don't understand where you got the information with respect to our refusing to deal with this individual. that's not my understanding of the facts. >> this is ice's public comment. ice said that in response to omaha law enforcement who said that they requested that ice detain him. >> i am ice, and i don't -- i don't recall making that statement. i would not have said that. what we did do is we look at every individual case like we do here with mr. mejia and determine whether a detainer to recommend to law enforcement is appropriate. as you know, that's been a subject of much conversation. we're working very hard to get all local law enforcement to work with us on it, and we've made some great strides.

>> how the judgment was formed, and why that was done. but i misunderstood your question. i understood it to mean we told law enforcement that we're not going to do that. >> the rest of your statement says your agency's statement, said he's scheduled to go before an immigration judge on march 23rd, 2017, but he released by the police after he posted bail. they contacted ice and ice didn't act. how do you explain that to family? >> i believe there was a matter of hours between the time we were contacted and the actual release. it is very hard for us to get to every inquiry made by law enforcement and unfortunately,

it's a horrible consequence here. but we try very hard to respond as quickly as possible. we just can't get to every site as soon add needed. that is a fact, we try very hard to get and respond to local law enforcement. doesn't do us good to tell them cooperate with us if we're in the going to respond. >> can you tell me when i'll receive a reply? >> i think we'll get to your reply within a couple of weeks. if that's satisfactory. if you need it sooner, i'll certainly work to get it -- >> could we have it by the end of necks week? >> yes, you can. >> okay. general roth signed a number of -- executive actions. one of them addressed changes to ice's detention policy for

illegal aliens. dhs said it was designed to identify threats to public safety specifically unless an illegal alien has been charged with a serious crime, ice will not likely detain that person. does that mean ice does not consider someone a threat to public safety unless they've already been convicted? >> frankly, i was not involved in writing that memo or developing that policy, so it's difficult for me to respond to that. >> do you acknowledge ice officials are strictly following the policy or is discretion used on a case by case basis? >> we have not looked at that so i think that's best directed to members of the administration or to ice. >> does the ig office have any plans or current studies of the president's executive actions on immigration? >> we do not. >> direct saldana, how should

ice officials implement the new policies put in place in november of 2014. can you give us a broad sense of how you exercise your discretion? >> generally speaking -- let me just address the tail end of that question that you had. that is requirement of conviction. i'm happy to share with you this card that we have that we provide to all our ice officers involved in this activity. but there are many categories here where conviction is not necessary. if this is a person with a gang affiliation, no conviction is necessary. if they have terrorist ties, no conviction is necessary. several do involve a conviction, but let me point out to you, sir -- and i have met with all our field office directors to specify clearly with them that there is always this category that is an umbrella category that says if this does not fit a specific case but you as an

informed, well-trained officer of immigration and customs enforcement believe that person presents a public safety threat, you're free to exercise your judgment in a manner consistent with that judgment. >> but in this case sarah root is dead. if someone kills a u.s. citizen, that doesn't meet the threshold? >> that was after the fact. what you're saying i understand that person was injured and within that four-hour period of time had not passed away until later. again, sir, it's easy to look back and say that judgment was poorly exercised. ass i intend to learn from this particular incident. i feel terrible for the root family and -- but i can say i wish i had 100% fool proof method to ensure and to look into the future and ensure whether somebody is going to

commit a crime or not. it's very difficult to do that. i hope you take my word that we do the best we can. >> i hear you. but it's not the case that he was released and then went and had another drunk driving street racing case. this was drunk driving street racing that killed someone, then he posted bond, then the omaha asked him to be detained and ice didn't detain him and he fled. >> and again i'm going to look further into this and use it for lessons learned. many times discretion is just that, it's a judgment being exercised by the person based on what they see at the time. >> thank you. senator peters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank the witnesses today for your work. there's no question the most important duty we have as members of the federal government is to ensure the security of our borders and

ensure the security of the citizens of our country. thank you for doing that each and every day. it's a difficult job that you have. i'm very proud to represent as all of you know a very large and vibrant arab american and muslim community in the state of michigan. i've heard from a number of my constituents concerns about the impact the dual national provisions could have on their families. we know that syria and iran deem individuals to be nationals of those countries regardless of where they were born or if they've even ever set foot in that country simply because their fathers were citizens of those countries. because the visa waiver program is based on reciprocity, it's

possible -- iranian americans. i would like response, is the administration concerned that other visa waiver program countries could impose restrictions on american citizens limiting their ability to travel to participating visa waiver countries without a visa? >> it certainly is a concern for the state department and the department of homeland security. we've been working together on the new legislation regarding dual nationals. we're certainly concerned that citizens who have nonmeaningful citizenship that they can't remove, the affects that has on their life. they certainly can apply for a visa and travel to the united states. we're still reviewing that.

certainly we're concerned there could be reciprocity from other countries. >> anyone else? no? also for the panel, i would like to know, just get a better sense of how the united states makes dual national determinations. so, for example, would a german citizen born and raised in germany and has never traveled outside the country whose father was iranian be considered a dual german iranian national by the united states? >> again, i think we're looking at that -- we have not made a final decision on how we're going to manage the dual citizenship. >> yeah. okay. i would love to work with you on that as we go forward. obviously we have a situation with a number of folks that are going to be in that category and are just concerned about how the process will work and we need to know how that process will work. also are there waivers that the state department would recommend for classes such as journalists,

ngo employees, certain dual nationals that you could offer? >> yes. the secretary recommended and secretary of state recommended to secretary johnson that -- and secretary johnson said -- agreed that, that was a reasonable interpretation of the law, that there be waivers for those helping us in the work that we're doing. i think particularly we think about aid workers who are providing food to the millions of people in camps in countries of concern, syria, for example, going forward. again, while these travels can travel with a visa, it could deter people who want to help us in our work, people working for the iaea going to iran to ensure implementation, people who are in business in northern iraq and

are helping that country develop. so we're very concerned about that. we're working together. we are looking at those cases. dhs has been building questions as part of the program that screens visa waiver travellers. no additions have been made -- no waivers have been granted thus far but we do believe the law was written to allow for waivers. >> great. thank you. the other area that i think we need to focus on and i'm just curious to get a response from the panel as to how your agencies work in an interagency basis with other parts of the federal government. a key area is trying to stem the financing of terror networks and be focused on stopping the flow of money back and forth. i'm just curious as to the interagency visa vetting process, how it incorporates information about financial

crimes that may have been conducted by individuals or they may be a part of a terror financing network. the department of treasury is very active in this issue and just curious as to how you work with the department of treasury to identify those individuals who may be engaged in those activities that are seeking to move around the world to continue to further those activities. >> well, i will say that our agency, hope land security investigations, that is -- homeland security investigations, that's up our wheel house. we're concerned about illicit transactions across boundaries. what we do is build data basis, department of state and cis have access to them, it communicates information they may have about a target of an investigation or someone convicted of a crime. that's available to them. we contribute to -- obviously

the patriot system is the first line of defense but also criminal investigations in general worldwide that's what homeland security investigations does. >> the one thing that i would add is we have strong relationships running in both directions with our law enforcement and intelligence community partners beginning with our law enforcement partners within dhs like ice, like cbp. it's critical that we receive information from them when we adjudicate immigration benefits. it's critical that we get that information. occasionally in the course of our work we identify information that is either of law enforcement or intelligence value. we have well-developed pathways to make sure that information is shared. one example is during the course

of refugee screening. if we learn information that is potentially of intelligence value, that information is in fact shared with the intelligence community. >> thank you. >> and we work very closely with treasury when they make a designation as part of that announcement of that designation anyone who is designated and quite often their families or anyone who benefits from these actions, they pass those to us, and we immediately enter them into our lookout system, review any visas and any revokation of the visas of anyone found by treasury to be in a class. >> all right. thank you. >> senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to say how grateful i am for the dedication, work, and service that the four of you render to our nation. we have an incredible country, the oldest constitutional

democracy. we were founded not because we all prayed the same or looked the same or heralded from the same genology but because we were a nation of ideals. every generation of our country has aspired to make more real those ideals. we are a nation that has people from all over the planet earth that have brought such strength to our economy, our growth, diversity of thought, diversity of innovation. you all every day grapple in an incredibly difficult space where you're balancing our ideals with the urgency of our time. first and foremost of them is to keep us safe. i know how difficult your work is and i just want to say thank you. i know these hearings can often be difficult but please know i'm

one of those senators that just appreciates your work. i want to just dive in where senator peters sort of touched on. i have a lot of concerns about the issues that face what was brought forth in the omnibus last year when congress passed a provision barring dual nationals from iran, iraq, syria, and sudan from using the visa waiver program. i'm happy that in a bipartisan way legislation was introduced, the equal protection travel act repealing -- seeking to repeal the restrictions on dual nationals while obviously leaving the other changes to the visa waiver program intact. i just find it very disturbing to me that the prohibition on dual nationals applies to individuals born in visa waiver program countries, have never even traveled to iraq, iran,

sudan, or syria, but they're nationals of those countries solely because of their ancestry. it really violates the values of this country. we support the tightening of the waiver program but singling out people based solely on their ancestry or national origin does not i believe make us safer. it is inconsistent with what i love about our country. and it invites in my opinion retaliation or discrimination against american citizens who are also dual nationals. so my point is just very plain, do you believe that the dual national restrictions that i just described enhance our national security? >> we certainly are always reviewing where we need to put more emphasis. we want to be sure that every visa interview is used

effectively to protect our borders. but we also realize that the visa waiver program by its very nature has allowed us to move resources to those places that we need to look for closely. >> so somebody from britain or france who has ancestry that's iranian, sudanese, does barring them from the waiver program make us safer? your opinion >> i think all things being equal, not knowing the individual. these are a case by case basis. that is not in and of itself an indicator of a person who is a higher threat. >> whenever i hear those words i agree with you, i get very happy. mr. rodriguez or honorable saldana, do you think we gain additional benefits barring individuals based on their national origin or heritage?

>> well, as a general proposition, no. >> okay. thank you. mr. rodriguez. >> let me be very clear. no, we don't, and no we don't do that. we scrutinize people perhaps differently in situations where they come from conflict zones, particularly conflict zones where organizations are actively promoting violence against the united states. >> clearly. >> but we don't and i would never operate an agency that operated that way. >> but the omnibus last year asked us to do those things and you're saying to me that we don't do them now nor does it add to our national security. >> certainly not in the manner in which my agency does its work. i don't operate the visa waiver program. we do other things. >> right. but you don't think it -- >> not my lane so i would not be

opining on the visa program. >> you're a smart man to stay in your lane. a rule that is very important. but honorable saldana, you don't think it makes us safer. >> generally.

about 40% of this country here illegally are here on overstays. that puts the number somewhere between 4.4 and 4.8 million people here that are overstaying a visa. let me start by asking, does anybody know which visas are primarily abused? >> i would defer that to the state department with respect to the overall picture. >> secretary, you got the football thrown to you. >> i'm not sure i've seen a figure on any particular area.

i really don't know. >> why wouldn't we know that? the article i'm looking at, still today about 523,000 visa overstays per year? why wouldn't we be tracking that? >> we do track at all of our posts and we do this through a validation study. we'll check to see, for instance, if people from a certain country are coming to the united states and staying on a certain type of visa. and different visas have -- it's harder to track. for instance, a visitor is in for a certain amount of time, six months usually or three months if they're a visa waiver person. a student, that's a long-term admission, and it's hard to determine at what point they become -- >> aren't we work, the schools? ? aren't there requirements for the schools to stay up to date

on that and report that so ice can potentially enforce? >> yes. and of course with respect to category, this is an educated, i think, guess. and that is the most visas we have are v 1s and v 2s, travellers for business and pleasure. but absolutely we have -- we're responsible for the sevp programs, student exchange visitor program, and we have the database of information that relates to all 8,000 universities that have students placed there and we do have leads that are provided to the ctceu which i mentioned earlier with respect to overstays. we evaluate -- once again, so much of what we do is risk based. so we're looking at the large

universe of overstays and trying to determine which one of these folks could potentially pose a danger or public safety threat. and the information we've got, at least i can give you this, sir, we've got about a half million leads provided where there is a flag with respect to business and pleasure travellers. that is the largest category of individuals that we're running doing. so i think that correlation is supported by that number. >> i realize there are tens of millions of people that come and go out of the united states states. in today's information technology age, i don't understand what's so hard about keeping track of this. everyone who comes in here legally has a passport with a number attached; correct? >> yes. >> that goes into a database. what is so hard -- and then have that passport attached to a particular visa.

shouldn't we just have the information on this thing? again, i'm an accountant so i'm kind of into numbers and information. but we can look at areas of our economy whether it's tracking numbers with shipments, but what is so hard about developing that database and just knowing with a great deal of certainty with the push of a button on a computer? why is that? >> we do know with some agree of certainty. >> you weren't able to answer me how many -- under what -- again, i understand vast majority of visas are certain categories so you assume but it's not like you have ready information of no this is exactly how many people were granted a visa, haven't checked out in time. there's an overstay. that should be potentially subject to an enforcement.

general ross, can you speak to this? >> what you're referring to really is a biometric system so you can understand who has left the country so you can compare. >> first of all, let me -- it's just numbers. it's actually easier than that. unless i'm missing something in terms of people coming in with a passport and a visa, that's numerical information easily loaded into a database with a set time that a visa expires. we don't have record of this person leaving. to me that's an incredibly simple database to manage. why don't we do it? >> as my most recent report shows, the challenges in the federal government in building these kinds of information systems is very, very difficult. i think there's been some effort to try to get an exit system that has not been successful. so i think as a federal government we're aware of the problem but we have not been able to do a solution.

>> would you agree with me in the private sector this would be almost like falling off a log to develop a database like this? >> yes. >> which begs the question why can't we do this after ten years in the federal government? unbelievable. >> thank you, mr. chair. a number of my colleagues have already spoken on this. his arrest for felony murder

vehicle homicide, quote, did not meet ice's enforcement priorities, end quote, would you agree with me that ice needs to take another look at its so-called enforcement policies. >> well, we do that every day. we train and we respond to evolving situations on the basis of things we've experienced and seen. so prosecutorial discretion is just that, a person's judgment looking at the information in front of them as to whether or not they lodge a detainer. it's a case by case basis. as i said earlier, senator, this is a terrible instance where we will look at it and learn from that situation. but prosecutorial discretion could have been exercised a different way here. that's us looking back. i want to look forward so that we don't have that situation

arise again. >> but the way we look forward is by learn fromming the mistakes of the past. this is not an isolated incident by any means. its priority should be to ensure that people who enter our country illegally and kill american citizens are deported and never allowed to return. unfortunately in this situation we have a gentleman who has done exactly that and i'm guessing is still here in the united states somewhere. >> and we'll be looking for him. it doesn't end there. >> i certainly hope so. there's a family that demands answers like we do. and to be clear if he is apprehended today, would he fit the president's enforcement priori priorities? >> okay. and i look forward to continuing discussion on this. this is important but it's not an isolated incident. we have to make sure that all of our agencies, local and federal,

are working together on these issues. i think we all can learn from this incident. >> i agree. >> thank you for your time. >> senator? >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to go back to visa overstays. every state has its own medicaid program. we're told that one of the cost drivers of medicaid is people who have unemployment but don't show up. oftentimes moms, dads, young children. so they do a lot of things to ensure people show up. one of the things we do in delaware and some other states as well, i think we got this idea from johnson&johnson, the other johnson, and it's called text for baby, text for baby. and what we do is we send -- i should say text messages are

sent to parents who need to make sure that their child has an appointment and actually shows up. they do this maybe a week before, a day before, even the day of i think. and it seems to me that that's an idea that -- and it's actually helped. makes it more certain people actually show up for their appointments. saves money for medicaid and gets people the healthcare they need. i'm just wondering if a similar approach might be helpful for folks who come to this country, most of the people who come to this country come here legally but a bunch of them have overstayed their visas as you know. i think it might be helpful if they were getting pinged as to the countdown of the date their visa expires. you know, you got two weeks to go, one week to go, two days to

go, twelve hours to go. it's the kind of thing that's easily automated. most people come to this country with cellphones. i like to look in this case to the private sector for a solution that might work. react to that please. >> it's a very interesting idea, senator. obviously everything that we hear here we take back and talk to our folks about. we have a massive number of students in the system and as the principle deputy said earlier, there are different programs -- i understand what you're saying is do the ping at the end of the term of the visa whether or not they're finished with their program. so right now as i said earlier, we're on a risk-based analysis with respect to these overstays.

who presents a risk and it's a matter of resources and trying to direct them to the area where the greatest risk is. but that's certainly an interesting idea. i think it would require a tremendous number of additional resources than we have now to ping millions of people. but that's certainly something i can study further. >> i'm sitting here listening to senator johnson who is shaking his head saying it wouldn't. >> not require additional resources? is that what you're saying? >> not a tremendous amount. >> think about it -- more than just think about it. >> absolutely. >> we'll put you in touch with the text for baby people and your folks can figure out how they can do it. >> are you saying baby? >> ba-a-b-b-a-b-y. >> ba-a-b-b-a-b-y. >> bring back my baby to me. [laughter] >> all right. a question for the director and

mr. donohue. good couple here. as i understand it, ice uses an automated system called patriot to conduct the screening of visa applicants for all visas processed at overseas posts where visa security teams are present. what is holding ice and the state department back from requiring this automated system to be used for all incoming visas? is it simply a matter of resources? >> i wouldn't say simply but that's certainly a factor. and actually, senator, we are undergoing a pilot right now under patriot, a patriot expansion pilot that's looking at three additional countries to try to do all -- that are not necessarily among these 20 or 26 posts that we have visa screening but looking at expanding that and what it would

take and how much time has been consumed. so we're actually undertaking an evaluation and study of that because if it's possible, it's certainly something we would like to do. but right now i'm not in a position to say absolutely that would happen. i think our study wraps up in may and i'll be able to report from you on that expanded project. >> would do you that? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> any thoughts on this one? >> i think we're also working with ice on -- for countries where the physical presence would be good but is not possible because of resources or other reasons of having some of the patriot functions, computerize functions, done domestically and then advising posts of the response to the patriot checks. so that will also ex-hand their ability to expand it to more countries. >> okay. this is a question for

everyone and then i'm done. the question is since 9/11, one of the key themes of our homeland security efforts have been information sharing. the testimony today references a lot of different programs and databases used to screen applicants before they come to the u.s. take a moment to reflect on how well integrated these resources are and what barriers remain. and how much of this sharing is automated and how much requires time and initiative by an individual officer? >> i can begin from our side. >> please. >> i've seen a revolution in the information sharing since 9/11 and especially in my 32 years in doing this kind of work. i think one of the most remarkable things is that today someone can be interviewing an applicant for a visa in mali.

that person's visa will be checked by my colleagues and the interagency, law enforcement, intelligence community, the response will come back to that officer whether there's anything to be concerned about in addition to whatever he or she has been able to find out in the interview. then that person is issued a visa. that person can get on a plane today, arrive in atlanta, and at the port of entry, the officer there will have all the information that was used in making that decision back in mali, you know, just in less time than the flight. so that kind of information sharing where we can look into -- for instance, our major database, there are more dhs users than there are state department users so people know why we issued a passport or visa. it's all much more effective. >> anyone else? >> sure. i think as this committee knows i've spent most of my career in

law enforcement and very early on was an organized crime prosecutor. i remember back in the late 80s and early 90s where what was considered our organized crime database was actually rows and rows of filing cabinets that would fill this room. >> we're going to take you live to douglas, arizona for a press conference for republican presidential candidate, ted cruz thank you for your incredible hospitality, thank you for an amazing arizona meal we just had and a great opportunity to tour the border and hear from ranchers and land owners here. thank you for your leadership and public service. thank you for risking your life, you and the men and women who serve with you, to keep us safe. we are so grateful for the law ensment -- especially the law enforcement all along our

southern border that face the day-to-day threat of drug cartels coming across, of transnational criminal organizations that are terrorizing communities. speaker, thank you for being here. thank you for your leadership. i know it is important and significant in arizona to have the first speaker of the house from southern arizona in decades and thank you for giving a strong voice to the men and women here in the state legislature. and governor perry, thank you so much for your friendship, leadership, your service. thank you for as a border governor dealing with these problems every day for 14 years as governor of texas. and when the federal government failed to do its job thank you for deploying resources and manpower on the border to help address this problem. you know, today we just finished having lunch and i had the opportunity to visit with ranchers from down here in

southern arizona. i'll tell you the bulk of the lunch, i spoke very little. i mostly listened and heard their stories. hearing the volume of traffic every day. of drug cartels smuggling across groups coming across with backpacks filled with drugs. groups that are heavily armed. i heard one rancher told a story of the cartels, at least one of the smugglers apparently monitoring her, finding where she keeps the key, and then this drug smuggler would with some regularity, come into her home, use her key, unlock the front door, take a shower, make a meal, wash the dishes, go to bed, sleep, get up and leave and lock the door behind him. i want you to think for folks in other parts of the country how you would feel having a drug

smuggler monitoring you and entering and leaving your home wi with. every rancher describes break ins just a routine matter of living by the border. president obama says the border is secure. bring the white house down here and see how secure it really is. it's a threat. it tragically took the life of a well-respected rancher not too far from here. threats that challenge our basic safety and security. i also heard from ranchers the experience of encountering the bodies of dead people left abandoned by coyotes.

it's worth underscoring that the people smuggling illegal aliens into america are not good hearted social workers with beards and birkenstocks. they're hardened, vicious, violent criminals and far too often they abandon women or children, those who are sick, they abandon them in the desert to die. this is a national security crisis. and it's a crisis that the federal government is refusing to do its job and solve. i'll tell you one individual who's here with me today who has experienced firsthand the consequences of that, steve. steve's son grant was murdered here in arizona. grant was 19 years old with a promising future ahead of him. he was working at a convenience store when an illegal alien came

in, put a handful of change on the counter and demanded some cigarettes. and grant began counting out the change when this illegal alien pulled out a gun and put it in his face. grant quickly grabbed the cigarettes and just gave it to him, but for no reason whatsoever other than hatred and malice and evil, this illegal immigrant shot and murdered grant. this illegal immigrant had been in and out of jail. he was a known criminal. he should not have been in america. he should have been deported. he should have been incarcerated. he should not have been in a position where 19-year-old boys faced the barrel of a gun and are murdered because the federal government refuses to do its job. steve, thank you for being here.

we mourn the loss of your son. and unfortunately, steve's story is far too common. in every state in the union, there are people who have lost their lives to criminal illegal aliens. whether a family up in san francisco, in my home state of texas, families who lost their little girls in a horrific crime. for far too long we've had a president, we've had a federal government that does not do its job. and i'll tell you it's striking whether you're in arizona or texas when you visit with land owners, ranchers, those on the border, the answers you hear are the same. the uncertainty, the threats,

people crossing your land regularly with impunity. the unwillingness to confront them because if you do you're taking your life in your hand. and also the question that i ask every conversation i have particularly with those on the borders, how do we solve this problem? far too many in the media too often suggest we cannot solve the problem. that is a lie. we know how to solve this problem. what's missing is the political will. what's missing is we have a president who has a partisan political matter -- as a partisan political matter supports illegal immigration. he hand cuffs the border patrol. morale in the border patrol could not be lower than it is right now. when you have a president, political operatives who oppose your basic mission, who punish you when you enforce the law. it becomes very difficult to do your job and do it effectively.

the most important tool for solving this problem on the border is boots on the ground. that's the answer every rancher here said when i asked that question, it's the answer people say in texas and across the country on the border. nothing is more important than having boots on the ground when you detect an attempted incursion to be able to be there quickly. not six hours after they're gone. rapid response. and rapid response not 30 or 50 miles in but on the border. a focus on prevention at the border turning people around, a visible uniformed presence. boots on the ground. and the federal government should not be treating state and local law enforcement as their

adversaries. we're blessed here to have a number of state and local law enforcement risking their lives every day. they don't have the resources to handle this problem. but the federal government should be working hand in hand in close partnership with state and local law enforcement to solve this problem. we've had a president for seven years that doesn't want to solve this problem. i'll tell you this, if i'm elected president in january, 2017, that is going to end. we will solve this problem. we will secure the border. and we will end illegal immigration. [applause] >> are those rattle snake shoes? awfully fitting.

>> we're seeing republicans unite all across this country. this campaign started out with 17 candidates, started out with a fantastic, diverse, young, talented field. and the field has now narrowed dramatically. as a practical matter, there are only two candidates with any plausible path to winning the

nomination, either donald trump or me. what we're seeing is the 60 to 65 to 70% of republicans who recognize that donald trump would be a disaster. if we nominate donald trump, hillary clinton wins. if hillary clinton becomes president, this border doesn't get secured. we lose the supreme court for a generation. we lose the bill of rights. we lose our second amendment. our kids are buried in in a mountain of debt and their futures are put in jeopardy. what we're seeing is across the spectrum. republicans across our campaign as mitt romney acknowledged today if you want to -- explicitly observed that a vote for john kasich only helps

donald trump. >> it's no secret that the washington establishment is not a huge fan of yours. >> i'm grateful to see the unity we're seeing, so many republicans coming together and standing behind our campaign. now it's worth underscoring, there's no doubt that every day i've been in washington i've been standing up to washington. it's part of the reason why so many americans are energized and excited by our campaign. we've seen for a long time the

washington cartel, career politicians in both parties that get in bed with the lobbyists and special interest and grow government. we're tired of being lied to. what i have done every day in the senate is stand up to washington not just to democrats but leaders of my own party, and honor the promises and commitments that i made to 27 million texans who elected me to represent them. i promised to stop am amnesty and so many more things. i've stood with the american people against the corruption of washington. now, we welcome the support of everyone. we welcome everyone with open arms. part of the process of a primary

is uniting everyone but i would note that they're uniting behind a strong, conservative, optimistic method for this country. we're going to change the direction this country is going. we're going to turn away from the manifest failures of the obama clinton economy and bring back millions of high paying

jobs. >> it says something that this was not a complicated endeavor. this was just, oh, the camera shot is a little better in mexico. let's cross over. well, you know, if you're a drug coyote, if you're bringing hundreds of pounds of heroin or cocaine or marijuana and i would note the drug epidemic we have in this country is devastating, over 50,000 people dieing in a particular year from drug overdoses, heroin is destroying

the lives of our young people and that unsecured border is a big part of the reason when it's so easy that you can hop the fence. my 5-year-old daughter could have climbed over or under that fence in five