tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 29, 2016 7:58am-10:01am EDT
order, and will start the questioning portion. we have excused ms. hartling. ms. hartling, but will continue now with the questioning part and boost over the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank each of you for being here, and your stories are extremely moving and our hearts go out to you. i spoke yesterday with the sheriff of gwinnett county, which is the second most, is number two in terms of criminal aliens being dropped off, second only to harris county, texas, and he has law enforcement -- mention it is number two. chief martin, as a 40 year veteran of the law enforcement, i'm hoping he might be able to
shed some light on some of the questions from your own experience, your knowledge. when an illegal alien is released, are you notified? >> no, sir. >> by anyone? >> we are not notified by anyone. >> okay. so we heard testimony this morning that i.c.e. notifies the states of all those who are released, and then that information filters down. and you were saying that that is not the case. >> we do not receive any direct indication from i.c.e. the only way we would know if somebody was released as if, talked to earlier, the victim would be notified and if they fill out a form, then the local sheriff's department is supposed to notified us that they are released so can talk to the victim. >> okay. civil law enforcement
notification system, is it working? >> no, sir. >> what is it doing? if it is not doing what is the value, if any? >> i have to take it back years ago when i is just another agent and all the county jails. i think, i would like to preface my remarks by saying most municipal police departments don't hold the precious as the police department. they booked him into the county jails so the sheriffs would have the authority to keep them. ..
now that i.c.e. does not have officers in the county jails full time, they show up in the morning, look at scrolls or gate book, if you will but that really doesn't serve any purpose because many times they will bail out the night before. so it's, it is not working. >> is it true when a criminal alien is released from prison on parole, that officers, local law enforcement have to be assigned to check on them? >> no, we're not assigned to check on them at all. in fact when they're released from county jail or state prison they're taken by i.c.e. to a processes center and then down to los angeles where they're supposed to be released. they never release them from the prisons. they always do it down in los angeles. >> so how does parole work?
does the state assign someone to watch over them? >> well pretty much the state of california have to then rid of almost all their parole. it is localized for the probation department which is not equipped to deal with it. the state got rid of funding for parole, pushed it down to local level. >> but you're saying local level is not handling it? >> no, we're not being notified. >> what is happening to the people? no accountability, no parole? they're not watch at all? >> if they're watched it would be by the local probation department. >> how do they get involved? who, at what point, in other words, when these people are released and put on parole, who is looking after them and how does that process work? >> it would be a county probation officer assigned case and he may or she may see them once a month or maybe never. >> who is paying for it?
the local parole officers, who is paying. >> congressman in the county it is actually probation departments, county probation. >> so taxpayers are paying this? >> yes, sir. >> we have i.c.e. responsible for releasing these people that should be deported but, in many cases no one's looking out for them. but when there are cases parole officer, in other words your local county is having to pick up the tab for lack of work being done by i.c.e., is that a fair assessment? >> that would be a fair assessment. not only that we're paying for all the investigations that result of us arresting these people. the local district attorney's office is having to pay to prosecute. once they're found guilty they have to go to state prison if it's a state crime. the local, county or state is paying for all of that. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i appreciate this but i'm shocked we have conflict in testimony from what we heard
earlier from miss saldana saying all the states are being notified and filtering down and that obviously is not taking place, at least in your case. think needs further research and investigation. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thanks for holding hearing. i thank the ranking member as well. like all the other members before me i just want want to so victims families and courage and willingness to come forward and try to make sure this does not happen again and mr. martin and mr. burbank, thank you as well for your participation. miss heart, can i ask you, the contact that you have had with any federal law enforcement, can
you tell me if they have been -- i'm trying to explore the communication between federal agencies and victims such as yourself and families. could you tell me a little about that? has any of that gone on? >> no. i have not heard from the federal government or homeland security or -- i.c.e.? >> nothing, no. not congressman, blumenthal, he had things rolling pretty good for casey's case when i saw him in hartford last year that, so, i know for a homeland security is investigating gene jacques's case, my daughter's case. we're just waiting for the report. >> mr. martin, could you tell me
about the contact that your department has on a regular basis with i.c.e.? do they inform you when there's, you know, there could be somebody in your jurisdiction that is, you know, under deportation order or, is there any communication going on between your department? >> we do have some limited communication with i.c.e. recently homeland security did build an i.c.e. facility in santa maria. >> are you north of l.a. between l.a. -- >> we're between los angeles and san francisco. >> yeah. >> however it is not a detention center. it is simply a processing center. when they go, i'm referring to i.c.e., when they pick up people done their time in state prison or county jail and take them to the processes center for few hours, by van take them down to oxnard or los angeles. so the center is there, but only open during the day and it is
simply a processing center. >> that's it? >> yes, sir. >> and tell me a little bit, i know in some of your testimony, you know, there is a description of decriminalization of possession heroin? >> yes. >> meth, others. how has that played into your ability to do your job in this respect? >> all across california increased property crimes over 20%. so we're seeing increase there. we're seeing increase in homelessness. some of these people are illegal aliens living on the streets. so when they passed that law, prop 47, it really took our ability away to force them into a court or force them into even rehabilitation or probation. >> i see. all right. well, again, miss heart link,
mr. root, any contact with i.c.e. or federal authorities or inability or unwillingness to do so? >> i had one gentleman from i.c.e., when we were dealing with the omaha fugitive task force, he was 100% great, trying to give me some information. he had, if they catch this killer of my daughter, that the sheet, if they tell where he has hearings, that type of stuff. he would hand carry it out and have me fill it out, whoever his superior is did not want that to happen. it came in the mail. i asked him, does he want to deal with me? they dropped ball again. probably about a month later i'm trying to get some answers. i have some contact numbers from jake up to the minneapolis st. paul area, a coup -- couple of his super survivors called
back, much the same thing, sara sal dan i -- zare's advisor reah the out to me. i wasn't interested a day or two days later what part of no, don't you get. no, means no. that's it. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. i see my time expired. i thank the witnesses. >> we'll go to mr. desantos, chairman of subcommittee on national security. recognize him for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. my sympathies. the thing is, what gets me, it was preventable, had our government simply done its job, our core duties you would have your loved ones here today. i appreciate, miss hartling, in your testimony this is happening across our country. i was in law enforcement as a
prosecutor. if it is just some random american commit as crime we want to prevent it. when you have somebody in custody and you release them, when they're early release as criminal in the normal justice system or here in this case, people are here illegally and don't have the right to be here have committed crimes, you are putting the public at risk. so just very, very frustrating. i was disappointed in director saldana saying this is political banter. this is not political banter. that is lives at stake. these government not fulfilling their duty. when you hear as being dismissed as political banter, how does that make you feel? >> i couldn't believe it. i found it hard to believe that came up. >> mr. root, how did you feel about that? >> i don't know how you can be so incompetent and still keep your job. >> what about the excuses that
you hear, well, we got a lot of factors to consider or this or that? how does that make you feel? >> that's, that's the worst part because i know in my heart and my family and everybody that loves casey that i forgot where i was going with this. what was your question again? >> when you hear different excuses why we can't do this, we have to release people, how does that make you feel? >> that, that's the first time i said, she was, casey was killed last june. when i heard that he was illegal alien and he was supposed to be deported three times, i said to myself out loud, i want to make it to washington, d.c. one day and i did and i'm very happy about that. because it is, i don't, i don't see anything happening, any changes happening you know, with our deportation rules and enforcement of them.
you know, so this doesn't happen. he was supposed to be deported three times. and he got let go the same day the last time before he killed casey. he was let go the day he got out of prison and i.c.e. had him and let him go that same day. so it is very frustrating. >> how about you, mr. root? the. >> several time i seen her hold book up, it comes down to common sense you know? in my case you have a homicide are you going to let that person go priors? are you nuts? just common sense. >> i agree, showing a statute book that says these are mandatory removals does not then mean anything not in there means you should remove them. you still have the, you should let them to. you still have the authority to hold people when the public safety is at risk. the frustrating thing is, maybe we do need to do some reform in the congress but a lot of this, there are tools available right now that the executive branch
isn't using. if some of these countries are not taking these folks who committed crimes we have things we can do to the state department. he they have never attempted that one time, not once. so basically we're going to continue to see, and the list of criminal offenses that you see, then this is what i.c.e. gives us. it is really startling to see the type of things. these are in every instance, people not here lawfully. you have sex assault, kidnapping, homicide, arson. i mean, it's just, it's a terrible, terrible liz and i feel for you. we on the committee, on subcommittee we think it is very important issue. we will do what we can do, legislative changes but we need to do it but the executive branch has to take this seriously. i yield back. >> thank you, we recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
mr. root, thank you for your testimony. >> you bet. >> we want to follow up, because we follow up, i didn't realize you're passing petition against the judge who set bail so low. >> yes, sir. >> for the killer. and, what i read from news reports, and i want to get your take on it. >> sure. >> you can't always trust the news. it said that the prosecuting attorney, the douglas county attorney admitted that it could have been handled better and that, basically we were dealing with an offender who had, who had committed previous offenses and who had skipped out on court appearances on previous occasions, am i getting that right. >> that is correct. i believe he had a, he was going wrong direction on a street before. i think he didn't have a child seatbelted in and couple other -- he had two other times he was supposed to show up for
court and he did not. >> so my colleague -- >> prior to my daughter's death. >> right. and my colleague, mr. gowdy pointed out, he was a prosecutor for many years, there is only two issues in front of a judge when setting bail, danger to the community and probability of a flight risk. here's a guy that had, had exhibited, not the probability but the certainty that he would be a flight risk and then add to that, that he was an undocumented illegal immigrant. that has, is like walking into a court with a stamp on your forehead that says i am a flight risk, incarcerate me at very, very high bail. i can see being mad at the judge but sounds like the prosecution didn't lay that out according to the news reports. were you there for that? >> i was not. i don't know what was communicated. when he got his bond we were burying my daughter.
so we didn't go to the pretrial. i spoke with officer swanson. both of them, a lot of them officers i dealt with, day and night shift daily. they took it really personal. they all did their job. to me and my family, whatever you do for your job, a judge, i.c.e., you should be accountable for what you do. if i, i'm a pipe fitter. if i put in a pipe falls down and kills somebody and leaks, i don't have job. >> right. >> from my understanding they're saying he didn't have all the information but he didn't ask for it either but with a name mejia, maybe homicide wouldn't you do legwork. he was in jail four-days, you wouldn't do research before you set the bond instead of running him through? >> right. do you fault the county attorney for not putting that information in front. judge? >> i would say yes, too. yes, i mean at all levels. city level, federal level, yes. >> again, thank you for being here. >> you bet. >> hopefully we do learn
something from all of this. >> you bet. i'm sorry the same judge had a bond of $2 million too, when my ex-wife was there, same judge. >> miss hartling, again thank you as well for being here. the man who killed your daughter unquestionably should have been deported. that is why i.c.e. put him on the deportation list, but as we know that didn't happen. you deserve an answer why that didn't happen. >> yes, we do. >> november 24 last year, senator blumenthal, senator murphy and representative courtney who you heard from here today wrote a letter to the department of homeland security inspector general. there are inspectors general that serve as watchdogs over federal agencies asking for an investigation. in that letter the members wrote, and i quote, it appears i.c.e. should have around could have taken simple steps that might have resulted in jacques
being repatriated and there never given opportunity to murder casey chadwick. his hartling, i assume you support that letter? >> oh, yes. >> on january 12 the inspector general sent a memo to i.c.e. announcing they had agreed to this request and were initiating the investigation. were you aware of that? >> i knew that the investigation is still ongoing. >> okay. >> so since then we on the committee have obtained additional details about the your case and information indicate tahitian officials, repeatedly, repeatedly said they would accept mr. jacques, and reversed decisions over and over again at the last minute. in one instance headache shun officials even a-- haitian officials approved a manifest listed mr. jacques aboard a flight to haiti and pulled it back at last minute. that happened october 10:00, 2012.
are you familiar with that? >> yes. >> that the letter from senator murphy, senator blumenthal, asked the attorney general what could be done to over come objections haitian government to removal of this individual. i assume you support this part of the investigation as well? >> yes. >> thank you all for being here. my time is up so i have to yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today is a about six names what it boils down to. marilyn pharis, sarah root, casey chadwick and people who took their list, victor ramirez. you're willing to relive this situation over and over again, many questions you don't want politicized exploited.
at the same time, mr. root, miss hartling, i have same question, what is it drives you fighting for your lost loved one? why are you doing this? >> if it changes life of one person it is worth. if you don't do nothing, say nothing, nothing gets done. you have to be vocal what you do, how you feel. i was brought up that way. that is how i feel. my whole family is that way. >> whatever the sacrifice is -- >> what do you live for your kids, don't you? >> absolutely. >> i have one kid left. my only daughter. >> miss hartling? >> yes. i agree exactly what he said. casey should still be here. there is no doubt about that. she should still be here. i shouldn't be here. i shouldn't belong to a group nobody wants to join and, i'm glad, he is guilty. he was convicted.
>> sure. >> so that but, having to go over and over in your head. >> i compliment the strength that you guys are exhibiting. chief martin, for you to take up the cause. congratulations, as far as being appointed full-time chief there. a lot of that is due to your many years of experience. done a lot of reading with your background. very impressed what you did with the sheriff's department, and gang-related stuff you've been fighting it a long time. you've seen it first-hand. i'm impressed you call it out for what it is. you made a quote. this is national issue. it starts in washington, d.c. with this administration we see and their policies. i think you can draw direct line over to sacramento with the policies. and you talk about ab 109, prop 47, and you made this quote, i'm not remiss to say from washington, d.c. to sacramento there is a blood trail to the bedroom of marilyn pharis. do you still brief that.
>> i do, sir. >> can you expound for a moment? why do you feel that passionate about it. >> we at local level are feeling total brunt about this we talk about national and state. every police officer goes to all the crime scenes and it just sunk in this was so, as i stated earlier, preventable. he was arrested six times. >> in 15 months. >> in 15 months. it is catch-and-release. catch-and-release. if they're misdemeanors, two of those are felonies dumped down to misdemeanor i still think i.c.e. ought to look at those cases okay, he might have you know, went and said i will take the misdemeanor plea bargain. >> right. >> you by think we ought to look at original case what it is. if it's a felony. >> of course. what does it do to morale of the good men and women that you lead when they see this kind of situation, where they're working, putting theirselves in danger, six times out of 15 months, speak to that if you would, please?
>> santa maria police department is great police department. hired 40 new police officers last 3 1/2 years. they're dedicate and come to work every day. they realize something needs to be done at higher level. they all know that. >> you know sticking your neck out like this you will get all kinds of innuendoes and name-calling everything else. i commend you being willing to fight this fight. i think it will make a difference in the future. all of you. i had several questions, may have time for one for mr. burbank. mr. burbank, do you agree with the job saldana is doing at immigration customs enforcement. >> the system is broken on both ends. >> does she have responsibility for some of the decisions she is making? >> absolutely. >> my specific question for you, you previously testified before the house judiciary committee in opposition to a bill that would make criminal alien drunk driving deportable. how do you explain that? i'm not trying to add histrionics how do you explain to families that shouldn't be to
that level of criminal offense. >> the criminal offense should be equal under the law. if you are a citizen, if you are a visitor to the country or if you are undocumented in the country they should have the same due pros that anyone is entitled to in the united states. that is what i firmly believe in my job. >> that is flawed argument. i heard that today. listen, aliens don't have as many criminal background or acts as normal population. my point is, they wouldn't be here to begin with there would be no criminal acts is that not true. i yield back. i appreciate it. >> i recognize ranking member. >> what were you going to say? >> i was going to say we've identified many flaws within the criminal justice system are not necessarily direct recommended to immigration status. >> as i said to you, miss hartling and to you, mr. root, i really do thank you for being here. >> thank you.
>> and you know, the government printing office prints records of these hearings and you know, one of the things that i noticed about myself, sometimes you can learn something about yourself when you go through stuff, is that i never wanted anybody to forget my nephew. you know i didn't want him to be like a flash and then it is like he didn't exist. and since the, a record is being made here, that is a permanent record, i wanted to give you opportunity to say anything special about your loved ones. miss hartling? >> may i? >> yeah, you. >> casey, casey was a spitfire. everybody loved her.
she was a tiny little thing. >> was she like you? >> yes. [laughter]. >> i wouldn't have guessed. >> she was not tall. very short. i have two daughters that are five foot one. that is casey and my oldest and my other daughter is 17. she is as tall as me. my other two daughters are short. but she was, casey wouldn't put up with any wrongdoings or anything. casey was, she was a fighter. and that's why she had so many defensive wounds on her and everything because she fought, she fought back. and, but she was, she was great. she was, we talked every single day. i talked or text, she talked or texted to me every single day. if there was a car accident on the highway, because i'm a lousy driver, she would call me on the phone to make sure it wasn't me in the accident, every time.
sometimes i just, i'm home, casey. it wasn't me. so she just, she was just a very caring, loving, 25-year-old beautiful girl with her whole life ahead of her and, and now she's gone. >> you know you said something that, kind of caught my ear and you said, you act -- after it happened you wanted to come to washington. >> yes. >> you said these words it made me happy to be able to come? >> yes. >> can you -- sometimes i think we who sit on, in these chairs, don't realize the significance of these kinds of moments. can you explain to me why you said that? >> because, i felt that, i could contribute my story about my daughter and how he was supposed
to be deported three times. so i.c.e. and federal government need to, i wanted to just say what i wanted to say. that it was wrong and they needed, they need to have more steps to take or whatever at the do to detain an illegal alien who did a heinous crime, you know. so, he obviously had already done that before casey. he had already, he was acquitted of killing one guy and he attempted murder the guy's girlfriend. so he was already a bad, you know, he was already a criminal. when he got out of jail and i just, when i found out i.c.e. let him go the same exact day, that doesn't make any sense to me. >> you know, i said, one of my favorite sayings is that out of
pain comes one's passion to do their purpose. >> exactly. >> pain, passion, purpose. mr. root, can you tell us about your -- >> my daughter, she is just, a lot like most hartling's daughter, she was small, but a little spitfire. you always knew where you stood with her, just like my whole family being vocal. she was very loving, very smart, very beautiful, very caring, she was passionate, willing to help people all the time. she just graduated with a 4.0. she worked al walgreen's too, while she wanted to master's. ing to help somebody at drop of a crime, a good-hearted person. enjoyed doing a lot of family things. hints fishing. she was going hunt with me.
dad, you're going to be pissed when i get one bigger than you. i bought her a shotgun. she was active in soccer when she was younger. being on a boat catching fish. would want to steer. real joy. we never had problems with either one of our kids. it is just, it is a lot to swallow in, you know. but, i'll see her again and, you know, you don't want your kids to die in vain. you got to speak for what you believe in. it's hard to do. myself, my family, like i said, feels from the local to the federal level, you know the ball has been dropped everywhere and everybody should be held accountable. until my baby girl gets justice, i'll be here. >> you know the, there is a song that i love so much. it says the time we shared will always be.
the time we shared will always be. you know, as i listened to you, i think it is very important that we put faces -- one of the reasons we want to talk about them. >> that's fine. >> to put faces. people, you know, we get to a point in our nation and in our world, where people, things happen to people and it's like, it is collateral damage, it is not a human being. like a family behind, that people mourning, feeling sorrow, you know, and as i say, mourning for things that could have been. >> yes. >> so i just wanted to, i appreciate you all sharing. and we, again, there are definitely some problems here. we're going to try to solve. and i agree with the other side. i don't think to use the word political banter, i thought that was not appropriate.
it is about trying to solve problems. and trying to make it so, i think this would be, your aim of being here, trying to make sure this doesn't happen to somebody else's daughter. >> yes, sir. >> or somebody else's cousin or sister, or friend or fiance. again i want to thank you all for being here and your, when you talk about your daughters i can tell you it, when you put the personal side to it, i think it helps us when we're trying to resolve these problems, to just keep in mind, you know, this is for two wonderful, awesome spitfires as you said young people. >> -- friends. >> yes. thank you all. thank you very much. >> you bet. >> thank you. i recognize my self.
again, i say i love elijah cummings puts his heart into it and cares. i think we all do. i don't think this is partisan issue but there are public policy issues we have to deal with. mr. root, i wanted to put up a picture if it is all right with you of sarah. this is your daughter there. how long, how long ago was that picture? >> she graduated the 30th of january. she died january 31st. she, after graduation, during the day she went out with her mom and her mom's side of the family, had something to eat. i went to a friend to do work. i wanted if she want ad steak with us. no, she wanted to go to a celebration with a friend. i had her in the driveway blocked in with her vehicle, and she moved her vehicle. i moved my vehicle and she parked behind her and parked
vehicle on the street. she walked back up after parking her vehicle and hugged me and a death hug. i can't leave without love hugging you, dad. that was last time i seen her before i identified her. >> the strength you exemplify here is just amazing to me. i've long said it is ordinary people doing extraordinary things that i think i'm most impressed with. and people wake up and something happens and they don't think they're going to be sitting in this situation. here you are testifying before congress. and i want you to know in your heart it does make a difference and it is incumbent on all of us to hear those lessons. as clearly and succinctly as you can the person that you
suspected committing, or committed this murder, what had this person done previously, in your mind justifies deportation? >> well, first of all, he was 16 or 17, 15 or 16 identified in arizona i believe and he was, released to his brother who was another illegal, you know. to me they both should have been deported at that time. you're entering the country illegally. there is two. if he would have been deported we wouldn't be in this boatright now. then traffic offenses he committed where he was going the wrong way. failure to show up for that i think. he might have had couple other, i know he had one didn't seatbelt a child in. i mean i don't have that information right in front of me. he had two or three other times he was supposed to be in court and he didn't show up. this was prior to the incident with my daughter. with the judge deal, that should have all been public record.
in this day and age, should be able to push the computer to show everything. prior to releasing him he was in jail four days, four to five days. they were claiming they didn't know his immigration status. the county prosecutor didn't give us this information and, to me, you know, that's, you know, if a guy's in jail for four days, gives you plenty of time to figure it out. you should know in 15 minutes pretty much all of it. i don't do legal work but it is just common sense issue you know. the way his name is spelled. i'm not trying to be prejudiced, like i said my mother was immigrant. that would tell you is probably is not like bob smith or something. you might want to do background check. just common sense you know. not to a point where even where you're a judge and supposed to be highly educated to protect the public, to me you failed. >> yeah.
and mr. burbank, look you served the people of utah for a long period of time. i may not be able to convince you or change your mind but i do want to offer another perspective. i want you to be able to offer another perspective. i want to offer one as well because i believe in the principle of restitution. you steal a candy car, put it back or pay for it. break a window, you pay for it. you're here illegally you go home. and so i think you do, for me personally, i think you do the need for some immigration reform which i agree with. we need to fix legal immigration. it is broken because we're failing those people who are trying to do it legally and lawfully but doing it to the advantage of people who do break the laws and just blow past the laws of the land. and i think we need to stand for firm as nation, we are a nation
of laws and if you break them there is consequence of that. right now that's is what i don't see happening. that's what i see time and time again being dismissed, that wouldn't really help. there are a couple things you said i would like to ask you about. you said we couldn't deport out our way out of this, somebody committed a serious crime, they're here illegally, remember they're here illegally, they're convicted of that crime, why shouldn't they all be deported. why shouldn't we stand for that. >> if they committed a serious crime i don't think there is police chief in the nation that said should not be dealt with appropriately. we shouldn't move outside the laws or constitution in order to obtain that. our criminal justice system ajudicates this. if part of that they are ajudicate and they failed, no question we identified there are failures in the system. >> would you agree the immigration customs enforcement
is required by law to have minimum 34,000 beds but they're only in the 30,000 range. that means there is a good, at anytime, two to four thousand people should be detained, could be detained and congress funded but they doesn't do that. you don't work for i.c.e., you don't work for homeland security but can you see literally thousands of people are here illegally as criminal aliens not being detained? not because it hasn't been funded. not because the law. just because the homeland security folks and obama administration decide, that is probably not in our best interests? why is that not in the best interests of the united states of america? >> if we have identified, interesting enough i did work with i.c.e. in order to come up with those people and try to make major city chiefs the united states say yes, we should deport those people who committed serious criminal act. >> do you think driving under the influence falls to that level? >> i think laws such as that fall into the category that they should be ajudicated they do with someone else.
we identified short coming. do you realize people driving around in this country that are citizens have four or five dui arrests in the past that we haven't dealt with appropriately either. we're looking -- >> i'm asking you, somebody here illegally, convicted of a dui, do you believe they should be immediately deported? >> a dui is class b misdemeanor in the state of utah. >> i'm asking you, do you -- >> no, i do not. >> so you think somebody who is here illegally, drives under the influence, it is in bests of this country to leave them here in the united states? >> i think it is in best interests of this country to follow the standard set forth so that you have equal -- >> i'm asking what you think, what you think the standard should be? i would deport all of them. you commit a crime in it country. you're out of here. guess you jumped to the front. line. that is the depositivetation line.
so, why shouldn't we deport that person? >> well, this is where you and i absolutely disagree. because i think that we have a practice in place and how we ajudicate things. i think there needs to be fairness and equity in that system. when there's not, when we identify people and they have harsher penalties because of color of their skin -- >> no, wait, wait. i never said anything about color of their skin. that is your words not mine i never said that i said they're here illegally. that knows no bounds, right? name a country that doesn't have somebody here illegally? it happens in the entire world. why, why shouldn't we deport that person? >> one, i don't think we have the capacity to reach that. and then two, this is the same -- >> you think it is saving money is more important? >> no. but what i'm telling you is, this is no different than tax code. this is civil penalty. it is not a criminal penalty enforceable in the state of utah as a crime.
>> this is where -- >> you can only be decontinued an die ported for this. you can not be jailed or fined for being in the country undocumented. >> you should be deported that would solve all the problems. right there. my time expired. now, recognize mr. grossman of wisconsin. >> thank you, i'm not going follow up with mr. burbank, but my goodness, kind of incredible how we have people who don't want to enforce immigration laws. we'll go with mr. martin, chief martin. could you just in general, you've been, you've been involved in law enforcement for white a while. when you were first involved in law enforcement in california? >> 1973. >> so you have seen a lot. can you describe the difference in the way the immigration laws of this country have been enforced, say in 1975 and way it
is today? >> well, i can tell you from a perspective in los angeles, when i worked at the los angeles county jail, we used to have ins at time working inside of our jail. every person that was booked into the los angeles county jail, they were screened by, at that time ins it has now become i.c.e. so there is a change there. then i've seen changes just through administrations. you see differences, you know. '70s, into the '80s. now we see it to the point like i testified earlier like catch-and-release. it's at the point now where we have, at local level it is saturation. and we're having a very difficult time dealing with it, in santa maria and other places too. >> are you seeing people who would have been deported 40 years ago either for lack of resources or maybe mr. burbank's attitude of you know we don't care who comes into this country very much?
what, do you see a difference in whether somebody would be deported or not 40 years ago compared to today? >> yes i do. and what we saw in the '70s and '80s when you would have one or two convictions you would normally be deported. victor martinez was arrested six times in 15 months and he was never deported, not even on a list to be deported. so therein lies the actual evidence. >> do you have any feeling -- to a certain extent mister in my mind. in my mind we're ruining our country. we've had people, witnesses up here not just in this example, people who represent the border patrol the degree to which, not just this administration but other administrations as well, don't want to enforce immigration laws as all, as a republican we're having donald trump as our nominee because we have a lot of bad candidates who wouldn't enforce immigration laws. do you ever hear why we don't
care to enforce immigration laws anymore? is there any speculation you have? >> the only thing i here in california we need illegal immigration to work the agriculture area. but that does not, that doesn't ring true in santa maria. which have many people there who come from different countries under the h 2 a laws. they work there six, seven, nine months and return. so that argument doesn't seem to really hold water for us. >> do you feel we ought to do better job enforcing our i am my graduation laws? >> i'm sorry no. >> do you think which ought to do a better job enforcing our immigration laws? >> yes, sir. >> do you care to comment on chief burbank's comments before? >> well only thing i would say i would like to share with the committee what happened in santa maria just eight weeks ago. we had an crease in homicides for the year-and-a-half in santa maria. normally we have only about
three homicides a year. last year in 21 months or in 15 months, we had about 21 homicides. eight weeks ago this day, we undertook an operation that had an impact in these homicides. along with the fbi, along with atf, we undertook and we head the investigation. we served search warrants at 12 locations. eight in santa maria, eight in bakersfield, some in ohio, other areas, culminating arrest of approximately 16 people. all 16 people are illegal aliens from either el salvador or honduras. they were booked for multiple counts of conspiracy to commit murder. other murders we believe we will be able to prosecute them for later on. so that was just eight weeks ago on march 3rd. yes i'm seeing huge increase in some. problems we're having. >> seem to me it would be common
sense somebody breaking the law to come here, there may be wonderful people doing that proportionately they would be more likely to break other laws including laws against murder. based on your experience in the last 20 months, do you believe that illegal immigrants in santa maria less likely to commit crimes than native-born? >> are they less likely? >> right. >> no, i don't believe that. it is proportional. we have a lot of people, santa maria has 70% hispanic population. half of my police force are hispanic or african-american. they're seeing it on all levels. i don't think that, illegals are the, when they are here, many of them, only way to support themselves, they're not working the fields, they're committing crime just like victor martinez was doing. he didn't have a job. he was hooked on methaphetamine. he makes his living or makes his money by stealing.
>> that to makes sense. there is this myth out there i saw in some of stuff chief burbank said illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. in my experience talking to people in law enforcement, common sense here illegally, more likely to commit crimes. is that your concerns? more likely to commit crimes people here illegally? >> no. let me give you example. 500 people were arrested for drunk driving last year. 6500 drunk driving case. i would estimate 40% were he will lyle aliens and they make up only 20%. our population. >> that is kind of shocking. >> gentleman's time expired. >> thank thank you for giving ma minute. >> chair now recognizes mr. connolly, the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. burbank, i just heard that last statistic. and that is awfully misleading. if you want to go down that
road, what percentage of black american men as a total population, a part of the u.s. population and what percentage do they constitute in terms of incarcerated adults. >> they are incarcerated at much higher rate. >> what are we to conclude of that? don't answer. i would tread very lightly what you would conclude about that the fact you have higher percentage of people undocumented, who are arrested in a community that has a lot of undocumented people, i don't know what to conclude from that. there could be good and bad things to conclude about that, including policing. i have can tell you this, if my police chief were at this table he would testify that we want, we don't, we don't want to essentially federalize our police forces and make them the equivalent of immigration police. because we want the cooperation of the immigrant community
including undocumented immigrant community in terms of law enforcement. i can tell you in my community, right across the river, it was base of an undocumented individual, we were able to solve a murder by an undocumented individual. we would never have gotten the cooperation of the day laborer community in this case, undocumented, with our police, if we had not had a different kind of policy where we differentiated it. our local law enforcement function from that of immigration and customs and so forth. so, just a word of caution about that. and chief, you're more than welcome to comment on that if you wish. >> thank you, congressman. i have an excellent relationship with the hispanic community. we have outreach officers that go out into the fields and speak with them all the time. we do have many undocumented people come forward to report crimes. but the question was do i see an increase or decrease, i'm not sure exact numbers but i think it is proportional as i said. so, we have coordinators.
we have like i say, are 40, 45% of my officers speak spoon niche. spanish. i go to every meeting i'm invited to. i agree we're not supposed to be immigration officers, that is not our job. >> right. >> at same time we're feeling lack of enforcement at federal and state level. >> i understand that. thank you very much. mr. burbank is deportation just the, sort of the answer to ourour immigration problems here? let's up game of deportation and that will solve everything. >> i do not believe that is the answer. >> really? why not? >> i do not believe it is realistic. it is unfair system we don't treat people equally across the board. border issues, everything else, people come back. we need a system reforms immigration so individuals can come into the country and work. can come into the country and visit. return home.
can come out of the shadows and participate in society. this is not a question of legalization of everybody. this is question of allowing them to participate so that they understand traffic laws. so that they understand the rules. that they can get the treatment that everyone in society, drug, alcohol and mental health issues that everyone in society experiences regardless of what their race is or where they may be from. >> if, what is the recidivism rate of deported individuals? i mean we sometimes act as if deportation is the ultimate answer to a set of problems. but, the fact of the matter is, depending on who you are, and where you come from, you may illegally enter the united states multiple times, even after having been deported, is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> and that is because of why? >> i think there is a desire to
be in this country and there are family members, there are many issues but they do not, studies have shown, conducted by research institutes and universities across the nation that show individuals, even in multiple returns, are committing crime at a lesser rate. >> but even where we've got criminal activity, for example, in northern virginia where i live, we've had gangs leadership that has been deported to, back to central america, only to have them show up again, you know, four or five month later and, we have to go through the process all over again. so, sometimes when we're dealing with criminal, criminals they have a criminal network that also serves to reinject them unfortunately back into this community? and that's a different kind of challenge than simply addressing
somebody's status, would you agree? >> absolutely. you just identify frustration of police chiefs across the nation. the system is broken. until we reform immigration as a whole, we will knot get past loopholes that criminals are finding. >> i would just say this in my final comment. but i think you put, i spent 14 years in local government before coming here and, was chairman of my county, was equivalent of being a mayor. 1.2 million people. and that is my feeling that the federal government has in some ways by overseeing a broken system, as forced localities and local communities to deal with the consequences of this broken system and sometimes certainly are two grieving parent here, give witness to, it leads to tragedy. we've got to fix the system. thank you. >> chair now recognizes mr. carter, gentleman from
georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all of you for being here. i can only imagine that feelings that you have. please note that you are in our prayers and we appreciate your courage for being here. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> mr. martin, if i could ask you, specifically, victor martinez ramirez, was illegal alien who killed air force veteran marilyn ferris. he had been arrested by your police department six times in the previous 15 months, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> fifth -- six times in the previous 15 months? >> yes, sir. >> it is my understanding he had been released by the santa barbara county jail only 96 hours prior to do this? >> yes, sir. >> had i.c.e. issued a detainer for this guy? >> not in this particular case. they did provide a detainer in 2014.
but that was the only one we knew. >> is your city, mr. martin, is your city, or santa barbara county a sanctuary jurisdiction? >> no, sir. the city of santa maria is not a sanctuary city. never has been. in fact i have letters from our city manager which was authored by our city council stating specifically that they have never voted for at anytime in the past or in the present to be a sanctuary city. >> have you ever contacted i.c.e. previously about to request detainer on someone, on a suspected illegal alien? have you ever had that experience? >> no, sir. what we do, when we arrest someone santa maria police department makes an arrest we fill out a form that goes with the prisoner to the county jail. santa maria police department, we don't have a jail to put people in. we have a booking processing area. in this form we do check, the
officer does, officer requests immigration review. in this particular case for victor martinez we checked yes. it would be in the hands of sheriff's department and i.c.e. for them to go down to make a he review. >> you're not sure what happened after that in that particular case? >> no, sir. >> okay. wouldn't you agree that sheriff, that increased communication between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement would -- federal law enforcement especially, they're the ones who are responsible for immigration enforcement, wouldn't you agree the better communication would obviously benefit everyone in this case? >> yes, sir, i would. >> hopefully keep a tragedy like this from happening again. obviously this is just, this is obviously not our best work and could qualify as being our worst work. mr. chairman, obviously i'm appalled as we all are what happened in this particular case and what happened in many cases like this and i, especially when you had a veteran who was
murdered at the hands of an illegal aliens who was in police cud did i only hours before, only hours before this person was in police custody. so, i want to bring to your attention, mr. chairman, other members of the committee, a bill that i have is hr-4007, alerted act. helps increased communication at all levels of law enforcement the insures dhs and i.c.e. are responsive to those inquiryies just like mr. martin just indicated. they will work to make sure these illegal aliens are indeed checked on and that our immigration laws are enforced. again, it is hr-4007. that is bill i'm sponsoring. call the alerted act hopefully to increase communication between law enforcement and federal government. that is what we need more of. thank you for being here, again and our condolences. thank you so much, we appreciate your courage.
mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from georgia. i now recognize myself for five minutes. first of all, i want to thank the ranking member for asking you to tell us about casey and sarah and if you can, mr. martin, tell us a little bit about marilyn ferris. we don't want these people to just be statistics. i watched and i as people wiped tears, as a dad of two daughters i can't imagine what you've been through. we, all of us are very, very grateful for coming. this has been very helpful. mr. root, is it true that mr. mejia bail was less than cost of sarah's funeral? >> yes it is. >> do you know whether or not mr. mejia had a driver's license? >> he did not.
>> was he, do you know whether or not he ever had one? >> i do not know that fact. i know there is no insurance, the vehicle that killed my daughter, i'm not even sure of the true owner of that vehicle. it is in omaha impound lot right now. i heard it was from another illegal roofing contractor from wichita, kansas. but they won't let me take it out of there to get it dusted for presents whatever you want to say so. . .
>> yes, sir. >> do you think it makes sense when we know that have a record of drunk driving come at a like for you and said, you did not have your microphone on, i asked you think we have enough without adding illegal drunk drivers to that speed and yes, sir, we have enough. >> do you think it makes sense when it picked up for drunk driving since there illegally regardless of race, national origin, ma sex, gender, does it matter or since there illegally under breaking our laws doesn't make sense for them to stay here? >> no, sir, ma it does not. i view the vehicle just as they would a pistol. >> and in this case, in sarah's case it was just as deadly as a pistol, wasn't it? >> yes, sir. >> mr. burbank come in your last comment to you same to imply
that the american taxpayers should pay for substance abuse treatment for people who are here illegally. is that what you're saying we need to do, as a nation? >> i don't believe i said that. i said that we have demonstrated through programs that would substance abuse treatment, that is the direction we bring, we are more effective than we are with incarceration. >> you said that in the context of illegals. and if they are here illegally and the -- an if they were in te substance abuse programs, you are pretty much saying that me to invest american taxpayer dollars in providing substance abuse for people who are here illegally. does do not create another incentive for them to come in illegally? >> we have people who exist in this country in all different
forms -- >> listen. you're trying to turn this into something that it is not and i'm not going to let you do. the chairman will probably pull the out of the chair. but we are sick of this. you have three people to representing families who have lost loved ones. we know that there was 124 people who are here illegally committed murders. just this month in my home state of alabama they've arrested three illegals, who were here to do a commendation and one of them said that had the family been there with a firearm he would have shot them. they were arrested, mr. martin, by local police in oxford, alabama, who are art ward nftc they were carrying weapons and arrested them. they had prior convictions as we'll. one of them was carrying a pistol stolen from texas. one of them had a felony that goes back to 2008. it's insane. it's criminal, and you're sitting next to people who have lost two of the most precious things they will ever lose in
their lives. and, frankly, i find it offensive. >> may i respond? >> yes, you may. >> i sympathize with these individuals. effect in the year 2000 my friend and colleague lost his life advance of an undocumented immigrant. i would not want that person can't do is have been found he was held in custody and released, i would not want that person found at expense of someone else's constitutional rights or civil rights spill we are not talking about constitutional rights, and i think you've crossed the line in trying to imply that people who are here illegally have the same rights as people who are here legally, who are citizens of the country. we are not denying people due process. we are not denied access to the justice system. we are trying to treat people as humanely as we possible can, but the fact of the matter is, i don't care if it was just want
in the last 10 years. it would've been one too many it was my daughter or my son. i yield back. i recognize you for two minutes. >> i don't need to move. i just want to do a follow up with chief martin. i want to thank you for being here today. i see congressman connolly has left her i just did want to respond also to comment. i thought it was completely out of line. i think the implication was completely unwarranted without anything to back it up. i appreciate what you're saying. i think we see both from representative connolly and former chief burbank kind of the mentality we've got to get over in this country if we're going to save our country. because we are going to lose our country unless we begin to take these immigration laws seriously and went to me people, not to do the obvious. we've seen better to do but just like to thank chief martin to
thank all the other law enforcement officers around the country who i think are doing a tremendous job. i think it's unfortunate so many people want to disparage them. that's all. >> i recognize the ranking member for a closing statement. >> again i want to thank all of you for being here. i think when we look at this whole problem, we have to understand that there's a lot of pain. and rightfully so. and at the same time when our nation was put together, the founding fathers tried to great all kind of balances so that we keep our people safe, make sure that there's equal protection under the law and to sense of justice.
and sometimes these things seem to kind of collide. but i am convinced that we can do better. i think, and i think that company, as i heard the director talk, she was clear that there's some things we need to do, we as members of congress, need to do perhaps looking at the code and figuring out things that, ways we can be, help them be more effective and efficient in what they do. noaa system, unfortunately, is perfect. i practiced law for many years and i saw a lot of things that will go with me in a negative way until i die. but i think what we have to do as americans is constantly reach for that more perfect union, but
will we ever get there, i don't know but we need to be striving for that every day. and there's so many people who come and i want us to always be careful though, and i go back to my opening statement, that we don't just label a group of people, ma because i think that's very dangerous, too. because when we turn against each other, i think it's almost impossible for us to truly pursue that for a more perfect union. so that means that we've got to kind of try to address the issues that come out of this. we've got to look at i.c.e. and into the i.c.e. is doing what it is supposed to do, and all the other agencies. and where there are places that need to be strengthened, we need to do that.
and, but in the end we want to try to make sure, to all of you, that these kind of things don't happen again, but we've got, it again, we may be only two -- we may be only to minimize the possibility because, chief come as you know, things happen. people, even when you have the laws, people find a way to get around them. you know that. i know you've been in this business long enough. but again your testimony has been very helpful to all of us. and i really from the depth of my heart i thank you. i really do, and i think somebody said this a little bit earlier. you know, you never get over the loss. you don't. you just learn to live with it. you learn to live with it. and you learn, you are learning to live with it because it is still new.
the idea that you're able to do what you're doing to come here and speak for your loved ones, and like you said, ms. hartling, i think he said something to the effect that i don't want to see her having died in vain. you want to see something come out of this. >> yes. >> to help somebody else and that's one of the greatest ways you can deal with it. and we really appreciated. you came to the right place. >> this is were i wanted to be. >> well, we are glad you came, all of you. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we thank all of our witnesses for their fares are today. if there's no further business, without objection the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
>> i think everybody needs to kind of think about the future in a more optimistic what i think about how to configure about their own job in the world whether it is more definition of work is change. 34% of people are in the freelance economy and millions are working for multiple companies the same day, flexible economy. the natur nature of work is chae that there's positives, negatives but i will continue to
develop in the third way. how do you position yourself. in hockey you said wayne gretzky was great. he focus on whether the puck was going. the whole point is to understand where the puck is going. a vacant position and prepare the family for the future that's going to unfold in the next 15 to 20 years. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. spent next, house minority leader nancy pelosi holds her weekly briefing with reporters. live coverage expected shortly. the u.s. house came into session about 50 minutes ago and is probably working on a bill authorizing the d.c. school voucher program for five years. and coming up live at 9:45 a.m., a house panel looks at issues in the pet medication industry. tonight at 7:45 p.m. on c-span, this week's supreme court oral
argument in the case of former virginia governor bob mcdonnell who is appealing his conviction on public corruption charges. again we are expecting house minority leader nancy pelosi to hold her weekly briefing with reporters beginning shortly. the house, which started again 15 minutes ago, is looking at a bill to reauthorize and continue washington, d.c.'s school voucher program. here is more on that program from a capitol hill reporter. >> politico education reporter maggie is with us to talk about the d.c. school vouchers a bill being debated in the house today. what was his bill offered by utah republican jason chaffetz do? >> this bill that authorizes the d.c. opportunity scholarship program which is school vouchers in the district of columbia. this is a pet project for former house speaker john boehner way back when he was running the education workforce committee years ago and congress has
continued to prop it up over time and it helps allocate the money and towards these private school vouchers. you can call them scholarships which is what they're officially called for students from low income families in the district of columbia. this program is a symbol for school choice and a symbol for private school vouchers and congress is offering a proxy for the issue. >> you mentioned john boehner am the d.c. voucher issue came up in the house last year. the bill offered by then speaker boehner. it passed the house last october, the vote, what's the difference between this bill in the house today and last years bill quick why is it coming up again? >> it has a different spot. jason chaffetz has taken the lead now the john boehner is not around. for all intents and purposes it is the same bill. i think one thing you're going to see is the house passed this legislation that now wants its
packaged, it's ready, people can look for opportunities to slide the final bill into a larger piece of legislation like probably a spending bill later this year or something else they can put this into. it's really about having a finished product. there are some small policy changes that are think are important to people that surround this issue but for all intents and purposes it is the same bill that was put on the four last fall. >> this bill cleared the house oversight and government reform committee on a voice vote, but what are democrats saying about it? >> democrats as always i enlarge really, really opposed private voucher. democrats on the committee opposed this issue. i think people sometimes like to pick their battles and that was one, putting up a fight like to get a fight like they did in the fall is what you saw when the bill was marked up. the are a few democrats in the senate who do support vouchers, but for the most part democrats are concerned that this would drain resources from a public school system.
republicans can counter with that because this bill is set up any specific way where it actually has a pot of money and some of the coast to d.c. public schools, some of the come to charters charters and some of it goes to vouchers. there's a mechanism inside the program that make sure it doesn't drain resources from public schools but to democrats of voucher is a voucher, and that's in the end of story. it's go with them. >> white house issued a statement restating its opposition to school vouchers, but it did not explicitly say that the president would veto this bill. why was that? >> to an extent i think you have to ask the white house but i think part of it is what i said about the politics of this or the money and does and how it also gets the money to private schools. i think the white house knows it will not have to veto this. this is not a bill that would probably passed the house and the senate issue. if it comes to the white house they will come as part of some
larger package, much larger piece of legislation that the white house might have designed. i don't think president obama would like to have this bill be reauthorize what is in office. he's tried to kill it time and time again over the years and i think a lot of republicans feel like he's done a lot to strengthen the program as it exists and make it not as big or as good as it could be. at the end of the day you never know what's going to happen. it is a must sign a piece of legislation that comes to the president's desk that has the voucher bill and. >> you mentioned democratic senator ryan feinstein. is there a specific plan in the senate for this bill? >> i think we will have to see a lot of innocent. i don't get the sense that is heading to the senate floor anytime soon, but there was a bill introduced last year. feinstein is one of the leaked audit. and i think there's some interest in history. this issue does have the support of most democrats and it does have the support of some republicans so it would be
difficult. >> maggie severns is an education reporter for politico. she is on twitter at maggie severns. you can read a report at politico.com. thanks very much for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> and again we are standing by come expecting house minority leader nancy pelosi to join reporters in the room you see or her weekly briefing. live coverage expected shortly. the u.s. house came at a session about 15 minutes ago. they again are working on a bill authorizing washington, d.c.'s school voucher program. a lunar norms holmes -- coming up 9:45 a.m. we will have live coverage of the house down as they look and issues of the pet medication industry. announced today at approximately 10:30 a.m. that would be the first and only about a series of the day on passage of h.r. 4901.
that's a motion to recommit which may be offered in voted on prior to final passage of that bill. tonight at 7:45 p.m. on c-span, this week supreme court oral argument in the case of former virginia governor bob mcdonald was appealing his conviction on public corruption charges. again we are looking live at a rumored house minority leader nancy pelosi will begin to breathe shortly. you can see a few reporters have already started to trickle in to the room. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> so this is who is here on a friday morning. i guess you're all worn out from taking her children to work yesterday. was about the glorious? isn't it beautiful to see the future right there before our eyes? it's my favorite day. i wish everyday could be take her children to work today, it's a great. it was a good day because we had a very strong democratic vote in support of the fiduciary role, a role to protect and strengthen retirement security and the confidence of millions of americans that they invest for the future, for the pensions, for their retirement. i don't even know why the republicans would put forth a
measure to undo that. it had such broad support in the private sector. the secretary, secretary perez deserves tremendous credit for the manner in which he listened to concerns, ramifications of the rule in the private sector, accommodated those rules, putting the beneficiaries first is the theme of the rule, and at the end of the day that's what the fiduciary role will do. i'm very proud with 100% vote in support of that. again, it's a waste of time. it's a sad state of affairs. time is our most finite quantity, how we use it, how we underutilized it is a judgment that should be made. right now republicans are underutilizing the time the public has given us to act on their behalf.
here we have a perfunctory gesture yesterday that had no prospect of success, wasting the taxpayers time and congresses time. instead, we once again by going to be leaving congress, leaving for another break, another break without addressing the zika crisis, the flint crisis, the opioid crisis, all of which require the full attention of the congress. we have been working hard on solutions in that regard, in many cases the republicans are in denial and, therefore, have their in action on these subjects. do your job at the american people are saying that. one way or another, saying do your job to do your job on zika. do your job conflict. your job when opioids. do your job.
and did your job on the budget. again, budget should be a statement of our national values. whether it's important to us as a nation should be, demonstrated how we write a budget. we have the ryan road to ruin budget, the republican budget, and even that is not cruel enough for some in his party. but again at a budget as a statement of values, we saved republicans shall usher values, show us your budget. the president has put forth and democrats have put forth budgets that are a statement of our values about how we invest in the future. if you needed to know one thing about the ryan budget, the american people needed to know one thing about it, it takes away the medicare guarantee. it gives seniors instead of the guarantee of voucher. very, very seriously undermining
the good help, the pillar of financial and health security for america's seniors and working families. we should not leave until we address the public health issues i mentioned, zika being one of them. and not taking money from one public health initiative to another going from, people taking money from a bullet to zika. i don't know, it's stunning to see the disregard for facts evidence and substantiation of what the zika challenge is to us. so we are again. when we were leaving for a three-week easter vacation, wednesday be coming in tuesday night, three weeks later, here we are leaving again without action. do your job, congress. any questions? yes, ma'am.
>> i was wondering if you -- [inaudible] >> i know there's a bond payment. >> there is a bond payment that is due on sunday, and the entrance to be drawn from the statement of the cover is that they are not going to be able to make a payment -- inference. as you know we had a commitment from the speaker when congress went out in the end of december that we would have something by the end of march. to ask for a little more time, and if that time is going to produce a better product, then as she said, time well. we are still trying to reach a solution. the administration has been actively involved in trying to address some of the concerns that have been brought up by some in the republican caucus, and i'm still hopeful that we can come up with a bipartisan piece of legislation that will
address the puerto rican challenge. it's really important to note that the bill we are talking about doesn't cost one red cent, one wooden nickel, one thin dime, not 1 dollar of taxpayer money. this is about enabling puerto rico to have the ability to restructure their debt. and they need that authorization from us. and so to see these ads on tv, our so, really, almost immoral in terms of the misrepresentation of what they are saying. and the fact is that we do have to have legislation so that we can enable puerto rico to do what it needs to do for itself, and at the same time be concerned about how pensions are
treated there. spent on the same topic, there seems to be a lack of urgency around here, a deadline sunday. do you have any regrets on not insisting puerto rico language be in the omnibus last fall? >> i have no regrets because we did insist. we just didn't get it. what i would've hoped that our colleagues would have accept it was my resolution i brought up to have a stay of litigation while all this was going on. and it would have been a very important part of addressing the problem. that's state of litigation. you may recall that was in the proposal i put forth on the floor of the house, but they rejected that. i think a sign of good faith would've been to support the state of litigation, and in the time was not as important.
depending on how long the state is. we still need a stay of litigation. >> quick follow-up. do you think speaker brian and republicans have broken their promise spea? >> i think you're operating in good faith. it's difficult, but you can't commits are hard to get anything done if you are tried by congress. who are barely hear. these deadlines -- has indicated that 11 deadline, july is another deadline for an even bigger tranche of probably around $2 billion in hopefully not default but a potential default on that debt. but to see the misrepresentation on tv which make some of the, the persuasion of the american people, because we are a reflect of the american people. we sometimes have to take
difficult votes that have to fly in the face of serious as representations that are put out there by the hedge funds that are paying for those ads, having a woman say she lose her pension. she will be worse off without a bill. that's for sure for those who say let's not have a bill, that's not a good scenario. so we have to come to terms. i think the speaker, the speaker has overriding shall we say principle, which is the committees shall do the work. and at some point there's going to have to be a moment where there's going to be a leadership decision that this is as good as it gets and this is what we're going to take to the floor. hopefully that will be very so soon. [inaudible]
>> i do have a problem with this because as the secretary of defense testified on the senate side, this is just not the way to go. what is our national security mission? what are our needs? how do we allocate our resources to that? this is silly, what they are doing is silly. if, in fact, they want, hopefully they will understand that by the time we get to the appropriations process. but it's one of those things where they, i catch a thing which they did and this is one of those. our members that did not, they voted for by the support in the bill, weighing the equity stake and what they don't support in the deal, and the vocal is something we don't support in the bill. but we will take it one step at a time. but we cannot, we cannot go forward with what we need to do for the american people.
we cannot honor the budget agreement that we all agree to last year, which was a compromise that established caps on what we spend domestically and what we spend from a national security standpoint by violating it in the first authorization bill that comes up. yes, sir. >> you mentioned speaker ryan's leadership style, and i'm wondering with all this issue that congress begin with with puerto rico, with a zika, do you think this would be going any differently under perhaps speaker boehner was in this news this week for a different race and? a second question on zika, would you be willing to accept less than 1.9 billion? i know there've been talks on the senate side just north of 1 billion. if it meant swifter action? >> first of all you don't give away your leverage that people cite it's a half a loaf.
it's not have a low. it's half issue. you just can't function that way. in other words, do we have a public health issue. it's global. it's growing. it's a dangerous. it's dangerous to children, expecting moms and to our whole population or why we're doing what we need to do? what scientific basis to people have said i will take half a shoe and see how i hobble around on that, rather than getting the job done. we believe there should be a supplemental emergency supplemental that funds the full justification, $1.9 billion, but also addresses flint and addresses the opioids. we are making good progress on opioids authorization bill that
there's no money in there. and so we really need to have some money, otherwise it's going to be coming out of what, maternal health and child health? where will they get the money? that's one of their suggestions. so we do need for supplemental. and also gives us leverage for the other initiatives that we need. we need to challenge the conscious of our country is what's happening in flint, michigan, and what are we doing but just a little here, a little there may be, but not really recognizing that responsibility at the federal level we have. and demanding matching funds from the state level as well. i don't think that's the way you post it, but why don't we just take some, we are taking money from ebola and then saying we're going to do, there's something wrong with this picture. do they not believe in science? not believe in evidence?
not believe in the fact that visit public health challenge but that's what yesterday we had a press conference with, was that yesterday? it seems like a long time ago. yes come with senator reid with the house and senate saying fully fund zika. and then when we come back, sadly, will have to continue this later instead of having it being done now. we will have a policy meeting which will address the zika crisis that we are in. and once again put on the record that justification for the money that is there so that the republicans cannot say we just don't know, we haven't seen why we needed. know, the evidence has been presented to them over and over again. clearly we have to presented in a way that the public sees what the evidence is, and that is
well known to the republicans in congress. this shouldn't even be an issue. i mean, this shouldn't be any thing we're talking democrats and republicans. this is something that is so clear, so self-evident or we have a responsibility to protect people from it. do your job, congress. one more question, too, okay. [inaudible] >> he should drop out and start on the working to unite the party, do you agree speak with i'm sorry? >> senator merkley backs bernie sanders and said bernie sanders should drop out if he doesn't have a path to the nomination speech when was the timetable for this speak with after the final contest in your state of f california. be a great any path for bernie sanders? >> well, the election has to play itself out.
i have never in my whole political career, which is a long one, ever said somebody, you should not run and you should drop out. that's just off the way it is. they have their own call to service, their own purpose. they have their supporters and they have their own timetable. and that timetable is one i hope will serve to elect a democratic president of the united states, whoever she may be, and to also help elect a democratic congress, governors, state houses and the rest. and so that timetable is not one that comes from the outside but from inside, that campaign, and inside the person, the candidate. i'm so very proud of both of our candidate for president, the dignity that they have brought to the presentations, the differentiation that they have
is very slim compared to the chasm between democrats and republicans when it comes to meeting the needs of the american people, and i respect the broadening of universal participation of young people that bernie sanders has brought to this election cycle. yes, sir. >> do you have a response to donald trump's comments -- [inaudible] >> you know, you all want to talk politics all the time when we come here. let me say, let me be just very clear about this. i don't know what party is plan. what, the joker's card? that doesn't even count in a deck of cards. but here's the thing. i do not think that anybody should campaign on the basis of, when i was running for leadership myself, the last thing i get sick of my colleagues was, you should support me because i am a woman. it's not a winning message. the way messages you should
support it because i think i can do the best job and here's what i can do. and i think that's what hillary clinton is presenting. perhaps some of the republicans did not recognize a skilled leader when they see one, but that's exactly what hillary clinton is a. and her message, her call for support is about being the best prepared person to serve as president of the united states. if i were, i haven't made an endorsement in the race, but i do recognize as i said of bernie, the contribution he made a drawing many more people, young people who are civic minded, endured but not pollute interested, now they are because of bernie sanders. that's real leadership, to inspire a leader has to have a vision, judgment and knowledge, a plan had to go forward, and to
communicate that to the public in a way that inspires. i am so confident that whoever our nominee is, whatever, whoever that is, whatever the gender, will be able to do that. elections are about the future. they are not about slogans like this. so what is it that the two candidates, when they merge, have to say about the future? and i know that they would be a wonderful, glorious thing to have a woman president of the united states. but that is not the credential to be elected or to have the confidence of the american -- the credential is your leadership, your knowledge, your judgment, your vision, your strategic thinking, your connection to the american people. i don't know that, in the history of our country, probably few people compare with the
preparation that hillary clinton has to walk into that oval office. that may be cute, that kind of thing, but the fact that trump is saying, and that may put in certain quarters but the fact is, the responsibility we have any campaign is to elevate the debate to a place that, again offers the vision the founders had for country, respects the sacrifice of our men and women safe, the freedom we enjoy. but also addresses the aspirations of our children. i think this is going to be a very interesting year. i hope the debate will be elevated to a place like that so with the next president takes office, will be with an understanding in the public as to what the legitimate differences are that we have between us, between the parties, and where the public comes down
on those issues, but not any cute statements about that i don't even know which one you are referring to because he has made so many statements. >> he said hillary clinton was playing the woman's card. speed i think hillary clinton is playing the experience card. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] >> house minority leader nancy pelosi finishing up her weekly briefing with reporters. on a political note. now training on issues facing the pet medication industry. members will hear from experts in veterinary medicine and consumer protection. you can see a few members are seeded at the table and getting ready for the hearing. live coverage getting under way. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> let me invite all of our guests to take the seat. the subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade will now come to order and the chair will recognize himself for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. and i do want to welcome everyone this morning i want to welcome our witnesses this morning we received testimony from our witnesses about the status of the pet medication industry. it is important start of this process by understanding the status quo of the industry. from that point we will build in
the surveys to carefully examine whether additional federal involvement is needed in the veterinary prescription medication space. the pet medication industry is an established market and continues to grow. in calendar year 2015 that kind of pet owners spent over $14 million on pet supplies and over-the-counter medications. an additional $7 million was spent on prescription medications. that care is a notable component of the family budget for well over two-thirds of chinese households. last year the federal trade commission wrapped up a multiyear study of competition in the pet medication industry. and perhaps this money the federal trade commission's witness can speak to the state of the industry with regard to prescription portability and distribution practices. in the report the federal trade commission noted that more study could be hopeful in a number of areas including pricing, dispensing errors, and the
secondary education system. this morning it would be helpful to understand whether any of ofe additional study has been undertaken to date. the veterinarian at ownership relationship is an important one and another part of what we will explore today. i understand representative chaffetz has introduced a bill to federally mandate the release of prescriptions that has been referred to this subcommittee. states have long held the bulk of authority over veterinary practice and over 30 states have passed legislation dealing with prescription portability. id remained concerned that this legislation, like legislation passed years ago, mandating similar procedures for contact lenses unduly enters with relationship between the doctor and the patient or procedures currently exist in all 50 states to address the claims issues raised by the proponents of this legislation. mark munoz skeptical that a
federal approach rather than one works with state regulators to tikrit and a vibe that is beneficial to consumers and their pets. as we have done with other issues with state involvement and as a matter of federalism, it is important understand how states have addressed any of the issues raised with prescription portability and what their level of involvement has been. i i will conclude my opening statement with that and recognize the subcommittee ranking member five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am also going to disclose i have a personal interest in this topic. my husband and i have two very energetic rescue dogs at home, siblings named franklin and eleanor. [laughter] and like any pet owner, that means of course we need to buy
heartworm prevention and other pet medications. alley has addison's disease. she has to take a pill everyday and a shot every month to keep her healthy. that owners like me spent a combined total as the chairman said of $7 billion. i feel like i definitely pay my share on pet medications and 2013. and now compared to the spent on human prescriptions, that number is pretty small but it is a significant cost for pet owners. we need to consider whether consumers are well served by existing market. right now the majority of pet meds about directly through a veterinary. there may be some good reasons for this come getting prescriptions right at the that may be more convenient. the pet owner may also want to the vet to administer the
medication in some cases. and what consumers prefer the convenience and service they should buy their pets medication through the vet. the pet medication industry needs fair competition. the federal trade commission looked at competition in the 2015 report, hoping care more about that. the report concluded that portable prescriptions come having a choice of where to buy your pets medication allows for more choice and would likely lower prices. expanding consumer choice is already come the direction we're heading, some states already require prescription portability in some form. a growing number of consumers are choosing to fill their pets prescription through retailers and online pharmacies. the question is whether we're currently getting the full benefit of competition, consumers need to be aware of the choices that they have come at a choice needs to be real. portable prescriptions do little good if the medications
themselves are not available outside the veterinarian's office. the ftc highlighted exclusive distribution policies as a potential impediment to competition. there's also the related issue of whether generic medications are widely available in the first place. we need competition not only among the sellers of prescriptions but among the makers as well if we want to see more savings for consumers. now as a dog on the audience are very mindful of safety as we have this debate. i want to make sure that medications are safe to be dispensed to my pets. i call them my kids. i believe there's the responsibility for ever sells medication to fill prescriptions accurately and provide the necessary information to pet owners. the ftc report lays out a good framework for today's hearings. i'm interested to hear about the current state of the pet medication industry, how we can prove the market for pet owners as well. i look forward to hearing from
our witnesses, and i thank you for your testimony, and thank you again, chairman burgess, for holding this hearing. >> the chair thanks the gentleman the and recognizes the gentleman from michigan, chairman of the full committee, mr. upton, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yes, this hearing is on pet medication industry, is an interesting look at a large industry that most of us has been described already have a very personal connection to, from dogs and cats, any pics, fish, turtles, horses, you name it. millions in michigan and across the country have opened their homes to pets of all shapes and sizes. in my personal office just down the hallway we have always been a nine to five don't office. all four of my offices today have four-legged critters -- fido -- we'v we have done all te years on the hill. so today we have a silky terrier, bugsy, a boston terrier, a pomeranian named
scout who really got a buzz cut yesterday. almost didn't recognize him. our beloved pets provide a constant source of joy and love to as well as unconditional love and i forgot to bring my box of dog biscuits and a careful contain ayala my constituents to feed our friends as well. it to fully appreciate how large the marketplace is and how important veterinarians are to keeping our companions healthy, all you have to do to stop and think about how many of our friends, loved ones, colleagues and neighbors have pets. ..