tv Review of 2018 Federal Budget CSPAN August 25, 2017 11:05am-1:51pm EDT
civil servants of georgia and all those agencies rise to the occasion and literally do more with less. and we don't feel like the people of georgia really suffered much in that period of ime. although we had less money. i don't believe it will be as severe here, but we're going to take the money that congress gives us. we're going to apply it in the best and most appropriate ways and get the job done. that's what farmers do. that's what agriculture -- agriculturalists do with hope for the future each and every year. >> agriculture secretary sonny on e talked about his use confederate symbols and working relationship with president trump. the entire conversation tonight here on c-span beginning at :00 eastern.
>> now on c-span a. review of the 2018 federal budget from the money the president requested to what congress, who holds the purse strings, ultimately decides. >> joining us from capital gal nancy, senior correspondental > now correspondentent for bloomberg. nancy, tell us what the president requested for 2018, and what were his top priorities? >> the president stuck with the overall number in the law, the budget control act, requesting basically a little bit over $1 trillion. $1.1 trillion as the law allows for. within that number he really departed from the budget control act numbers, and he requested a lot more for defense programs. about $54 billion for security related programs. and covers that with an equal amount of cuts in nondefense spending, $54 billion. so that's a violation of the budget control act there. but more than that, it's very
politically unpopular. yes, numbers really -- members really like the defense spending increase, but they don't like taking it out of nondefense programs -- agriculture cut more than 20%. transportation, federal housing programs cut 15%. labor, health, education programs cut similarly. state department programs cut tremendously. and congress is rejecting that. they really have their own -- they don't really have their own plan nailed down. while they are inclined to give a lot more to defense, they are not as interested in those nondefense spending cuts. >> it matters of this budget control act. and the caps that were put in place, explain to our viewers, give them a remind of the budget control act and why the president has to stick to it. nancy: this is a law that was passed when obama was president
and he was working with the congress, with leaders in a different party, and it was an agreement that they made to set caps on discretionary spending. not those mandatory programs where you have your social security checks and so on going out every month, but discretionary spending. they agreed to very firm numbers. and if those numbers aren't honored in the annual appropriations process you have something called budget sequestration take in and kick programs for alt wn a lot.do budget sequestration is something that members of congress understand and they want to avoid. so if a budget came across the floor of the house andwn a lot. budget sequestration is something that members of congress understand to the senate with numbers that don't comply with the budget control act, the bill, the package, can be challenged under budgetary point of order and can be
knocked down. that's what we would expect to see. if somehow the house gets a package like that through and sends it to senator mitch mcconnell, majority leader. we don't expect he'll get the 60 votes for that package. host: our c-span viewers saw the president's cabinet members, the heads of each of these agencies, go up to capitol hill, testify about the president's priorities for their individual agencies. how did congress respond? what did the house appropriators do? these are the lawmakers who get to decide what the final number is for each of these agencies. nancy: the house appropriations committee the members, the chairman, rodney frelinghuysen, was very polite with these cabinet officials, but it seemed that hearing after hearing he told the cabinet officers, remember, congress has the power of the purse. and we set the spending priorities. that message was hammered home
time and time again. and we heard the same thing at senate appropriations with the republican subcommittee chairman there also. they are not going to follow the president's budget. they are going to set the spending levels like they always do. and i think one of the problems this year has been that they haven't really found the president's budget submissions that credible. the first one was what they call the skinny budget that nly dealt with discretionary spending and now with mandatory programs, tax revenues, economic forecasts. and then when the full budget came out in may, that document had a $2 trillion err in it. these things were incredible and the members of congress reacted pretty poorly to all of this. the worst thing is that there wasn't enough guidance in those documents. so appropriators were mostly on their own to figure it out.
host: what have appropriators done so far? how much has been approved in the house? how much has been approved in the senate? when lawmakers return in september, what's left for them to do? nancy: well, a lot is left over. house is ned in the that the house appropriations committee worked very hard in the last few weeks before the h that august recess to get all of their bills out of committee. they worked night and day. their r day, to report bills. and four of those bills were put together in something called a minibus and taken to the house floor the last week before congress went out of session. that included the big defense bill. and that covered about $800 billion in spending. but none of those bills were passed individually this year. and over in the senate, they worked in the last few weeks before the august recess to
mark up six bills. but none the them have so far gone to the senate floor. and we'll be waiting to see if they can get any of the other bills through committee in september. this is one of the first years where we didn't see even an attempt to bring individual spending bills to either the house or the senate floor in the summer. so when they get back in september, house speaker paul ryan is going to bring up the other eight unfinished appropriations bills in the house as a package. bring them to the floor, and then the word is, is that at the end of that process, attach those four bills that were approved in the minibus, put them in that final package, create a 12-bill omnibus appropriations package, and then send it over to the senate. but because that package is the budget late
control act greatly exceeding the caps in that law, it's not likely to get the 60 votes that it needs from mitch mcconnell to bring it up on the floor. and then congress will only have a week the or two before t government runs out of money once again and the leadership and white house will have to get serious and negotiate a stopgap spending bill to prevent a government shutdown on september 30. host: nancy of bloomberg bna, very much. >> now into the hearing rooms. first back to late may when white house budget director economic mulvaney testified before the house and senate budget committees on the president's overall budget request. very much. >> now >> chairman black, thank you so much for having me. m ms. jayapal, thank you -- rm -- ranking member, jayapal,
thank you for having me here today. secretary mulvaney: it's great to be here. to be back in this committee. i served in this committee for two years and it's an honor and privilege to be here on behalf of the trump administration. mr. lewis, welcome. you are sitting in my chair. it's an honor to be here. i'm not going to read my opening statement. i am ' going to make a couple comments and get right to the question and answers. when we looked at the budget for the very first time, i picked it up on friday, the newfoundation for american greatness, i spent most of the weekend as you can imagine reading it. and as i went through it, it struck me we could have come up a different title. and the title could have been the taxpayer first budget. because the first time in my memory at least this is a budget that was written from the perspective of the people who actually pay for the government. and we went line by line through what this government does and asked ourselves can we justify this to the folks who
are actually paying for it? if i'm going to take money from diaz-balart in taxes and i'm going to spend it on a program, can i justify to him actually spending that money? if i'm going to take money from ms. schakowsky, can i justify it? can i look you in the eye and say i need to take this money from you in order to give it to a disabled veteran. i think i can. i'm not sure i could look at mr. woodall and say i need to tyke take some of your money to give it to a program that's completely ineffective, doesn't help anybody, and ripe with waub. that's the perspective that we brought to this budget from the very beginning. maybe that's what's new about the newfoundation. it also balances. as you know, it's been a long time since the budget has balanced. it hasn't happened since i came here in 2010. somebody mentioned this is a
moral document. it is. here's the moral side. if i take money from you and no intention of ever giving it back, that is not debt, that is theft. if i take money from you with an intention to pay it back and show you how i intend to pay it back, that is debt. what we have been doing for two too long, both parties, in this city have been taking money from people without laying out a plan how we're going to pay it back. we start doing that with this budget. this budget does balance within a 10-year window. something that is completely new in this town. what's the foundation? the foundation for the plan is 3% growth. that is trum-anomics. it's whatever can get us to 3% growth. i can assure you when i am in the oval office with the president and talking about trade policy, talking about energy policy, talking about tax policy, health care reform, budgets. we're trying to figure out a way to get to 3% growth. i have news for you. both parties, if we do not get the 3% growth, it is unlikely we'll ever balance the budget
again. that is not a plan. that is not a plan for the future. that is not moral to take money from people without having a plan to pay it back. we can to try to get to 3% growth. i look forward to questions today about how we do that. we do all of this, by the we ca to get to 3% way, still fund the president's priorities. you heard it by now, we wanted more money for national security, border security, law enforcement, veterans, school choice, even paid parental leave. for the first time every president trump, the first president of either party is proposing a national paid parental leave program. $20 billion in this budget to do that. we don't touch social security and medicare. following through on his campaign promises. and we're able to do all of hat and still balance. why?
because what we did here is try to change the way washington looks at spending. we no longer want to measure compassion by the number of programs that we have or the number of people that are on those programs. we because what we did here is try to change the way washington looks at want to measure compas true compassion, by the number of people we help to get off of those programs. we don't want to measure our commitment to the country by the amount of money that we spend, but instead on the number of people that we help get off of these programs and get back in charge of their own lives. --is what we think makes this the america's greatness budget. we'll get the country back to where we have a healthy economy, people are working again, people are optimistic about the country. if you are under the age of 30, job as an adult in a healthy american economy. a healthy american economy is very, very different than what you have seen for the last 10 years. the dine nism and optimism that comes from that is what -- dynamism and optimism that comes from that is what this president does. the budget is a start to that.
again, madam chairman, thank you for having me. i look forward to questions and explaining the budget to members. >> you have said that the foundation of your budget is 3% growth. i have looked every which way at how you might get there and you can't get there. chairman sand ford: as a consequence, i think it is disastrously consequential to build a budget on 3% budget. the bible says you can't build a house on a sandy foundation. what it does is it perpetuates a myth we can go out there and balance the budget without touching entitlements. it's not only a myth, it's frankly a lie. and if it gets started at the executive branch level, it moves from there. so i think that this notion -- of the the speaker house talked today about the er i have looked at this of the house talked today about the notion of 3% growth and how we can balance the budget. -- t -- again, as
earnestly as i have looked at this i don't know how you get there. what this does is it creates real debates. legitimately, myself -- earnestly as i have colleagues things quite differently. for us and democratic to have a real debat we have to base it on real numbers. i would also say it's important because i'm a deficit hawk as you well know. and if you are wrong on these numbers, it means all of a sudden we created a two-plus trillion dollar hole for our kids here going forward. kids here going forward. i want to walkthrough a couple different numbers with you. one, this budget presumes a economy.ks that's a very difficult thing on which to base a budget. if you look at the average economic expansion in the history of our country, it's 58 months. the current expansion that we're in is actually the third longest economic expansion in american history. we're at 94 months. but what you presume in this
budget is not only will we not have a recession, though we're in the third longest economic history, but it's going to keep going for another 214 months. it's not only unprecedented, i would think that to be history, unreasonable. it assumes that the stars perfectly align with the conomic drivers. can you explain when we had growth at 3% and inflation held held at 2%? it's never happened. the last time that gross was at 3%, held for a sustained period of time, the 10-year bond yield below 5%, you-all presume 3.%. can you guess the last time that ever happened? secretary mulvaney: i trust the assumptions -- chairman sanford: it's never happened. we're going way out there on the curve. terms of the ingredients of
growth. i broke out some numbers here. capital formation would have to go to the record level that we have terms of the ingredients s growth from 1964 to 1974. though capital formation goes down as people retire. they withdraw from the savings accounts. labor force growth would have to go to see what we saw in the 1970's and 1980's when women were joining the work force en masse. even if you include the labor participation rates took them back up to the numbers that we saw in the 1990's, we would see a .2%, a decimal increase not percentage. it would require either radically opening immigration or radical change to demographics as we have 10,000 baby boomer retirees today. if you look at productivity growth, it would require numbers again that we haven't seen since the golden days of 958 to 1967 and the consumer appliance, and completion of the highway system to achieve what we were seeing.
even if we were the 1990 numbers, we would only see one quarter of what is necessary to achieve 3% growth. the rand corps says -- rejection of a 15% is to be presumed with aging. i would lastly submit this for the record which is to say, if you look at the correlation between o.m.b. and c.b.o. -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. before we go further, i find it a little bit unfair that mr. mulvaney and many people in the trump administration disparage the director of the c.b.o. when it was tom price, the former republican chairman of the budget committee or -- who appointed dr. hall in the first place. senator sanders: let's get that clear. mr. mulvaney, as you know the united states today has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on eth. top .1 owns almost as much
as the bottom 90%. 52% of all new income today is going to the top 1%. your budget thinks that it is good public policy to provide $52 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest family in this country, a family already worth $128 billion. like nk that a family the walton family where one guy owns four ferraris, one maseratti worth more than $65 million are just in desperate need of massive, massive tax breaks. you think that sheldon aidleson, who among other things contributed $5 million for the trump inaugural, is in need of a massive tax break, as coch. the i want you to tell the american people why you think it is a good idea to give $3 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1% at a time when the rich are
becoming much richer, while at the same time you are going to 17 million children this this country off of health insurance because of the unconscionable cuts that you are making to medicaid. why are you going to throw seniors in the state of wyoming or state of vermont off the meals on 17 million children th this country off wheels program the one nutritious program that they get a day, why you're going to throw women and low-income babies off of the w.i.c. program at a time when infant mortality rates in this country was already high. you really think it's a great idea to tell a low-income pregnant woman that you are going to take away the w.i.c. program, take away nutrition programs from children, in order to give a massive tax break of $52 billion to the walton family. please explain your logic to the american people. secretary mulvaney: i'll see if i can handle each of those in
reverse. let me deal with c.b.o. first. disparage -- senator sanders: you made a dismissive remark. you guys appointed the disparag director. secretary mulvaney: the results are awful. senator sanders: you appointed them. secretary mulvaney: i measure performance by results. senator sanders: your opinion the results are terrible. i suggest it was a member of the trump administration who appointed this gentleman. secretary mulvaney: so we can agree they put out bad data. senator sanders: we can agree you beat up on a man because of the results. secretary mulvaney: meals on wheels is not reduced at all. -- ge we make is to the senator sanders: you tell me that --
secretary mulvaney: the program is funded through the old age, h.h.s. which we don't change. senator sanders: not true. secretary mulvaney: some states do choose, choose to use -- senator sanders: you eliminate that program. bottom line is -- answer the question. secretary mulvaney: the total money from meals on wheels that 3%.s from cdbg is i don't know how you can possibly contend -- senator sanders: you are eliminating the program 3%. i don't know how that funds not only meals on wheels but -- asked ry mulvaney: you about medicaid as well. the slashing of medicaid, the dramatic cuts to medicaid is a slower growth rate in medicaid. there's one-year exception during the affordable care act -- the american health care act, where we -- the bill calls for the end to expansion. and there is a small reduction that year. but generally speaking your
budget, medicaid spending goes up -- senator sanders: so does health care inflation. we go through these games every single year. inflation is going up a lot faster. bottom line s. tell asked about medicaid as well. the slashing of medicaid, the me -- get ts to back to one question. why do you think the walton family needs a $52 million tax break. secretary mulvaney: you are basing that assertion on the only tax -- right. if we want to have a talk about why we're repealing that, i would be more than happy to do it. senator sanders: tell me. secretary mulvaney: ordinary people are paying more. senator sanders: ordinary people don't have that wealth. secretary mulvaney: the secretary mulvaney: the average increase -- senator sanders: answer the question. the wealthiest family in america gets a $52 billion tax break as a result of the repeal of the estate tax. tell the american people why you think that's good when you cut medicaid and you cut programs for kids? secretary mulvaney: we don't cut medicaid. we're talking about repealing obamacare.
the result -- senator sanders: throwing 23 million off health insurance. secretary mulvaney: which is a c.b.o. number i think you agreed -- senator sanders: i dbts agree at all. why does a billion air family get a $52 -- tell the american people. secretary mulvaney: we think it's wrong ordinary folk -- senator sanders: is the walton family ordinary? secretary mulvaney: ordinary people are losing coverage today -- senator sanders: i asked you why -- mulvaney: because rerepeal the obamacare. senator sanders: you end the estate tax. secretary mulvaney: i'm sorry. i thought the assumption was we were looking at the -- the tax reductions contained in obamacare -- force force senator sanders: no. we're talking about the repeal of the estate tax. secretary mulvaney: the budget assumes a deficit neutral tax plan because when we wrote the
budget we did not have nearly enough specifics to assume what you are assuming, which is the specific reductions. yes, the proposals that the white house published about three or four weeks ago, the principals we set forth doesn't include -- senator sanders: repeal. secretary mulvaney: repeal. i think it's mat matically impossible to -- mathematically impossible to take those general principles and assume a direct impact on a particular family. nobody can do t i have seen estimates from groups that say it's going -- senator sanders: that's not true. we don't know when people will be dying, that's for sure. but you can -- secretary mulvaney: we don't know -- senator sanders: the truth is -- secretary mulvaney: i'm sure hey will die eventually. >> mr. secretary, floort is yours. -- the floor is yours. >> chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, members of the
committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the president's udget request for near 2018. gaining e vital to your confidence that we know where our money's going once you give it to us. this budget request holds me accountable to the men and women of the department of defense. every day more than two million service members, nearly one million civilians do their duty honoring previous general generations of veterans and civil servants who have sacrificed for our country. and it's a privilege to serve alongside them. secretary mattis: me and the department of defense are keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the american people to fund our military. many times in the past we have looked reality in the eye, met challenges with the help of congressional leadership, and
built the most capable war fighting force in the world. we have no god given right to the victory on the battlefield. each generation of americans from the halls of congress to the battlefields earns victory through commitment and sacrifice. and yet for four years the department of defense has been subject to or threatened by automatic croort -- congressional record cuts as a result of -- across-the-board cuts as a result of sequester which are so injourous to the military it would never go into effect. but it did and as forecast by then secretary of defense panetta, the damage has been severe. in addition, during nine of the past 10 years, congress has enacted 30 separate continuing resolutions to fund the department of defense. thus inhibiting our readiness and adaptation to new challenges. we need bipartisan support for this budget request. in the past, by failing to pass
the budget on time or eliminate the threat of sequestration, congress sidelined itself from its act of constitutional oversight role. continuing resolutions coupled with sequestration blocked new programs, prevented service growth, stalled industry initiative, and placed troops at greater risk. despite the tremendous efforts of this committee, congress as a whole has met the present challenge. i retired from military service three months after sequestration took effect. four years later, i returned to the department and i have been shocked by what i have seen about our readiness to fight. while nothing can compare to the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration. we have only sustained our ability to meet america's commitments abroad because our
troops have have stoically shouldered a much greater burden, but our troop's stoic commitment cannot reduce the growing risk. it took us years to get into this situation. it will require years of stable budgets and increased funding to get out of it. i urge members of this committee and congress to achieve three goals. first, fully fund a request which required an increase to the defense budget caps. second, pass an f.y. 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful continuing resolution. and third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration cuts so we can provide a stable budgetary planning horizon. stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because of four external forces acting on the department at the same time. the first force that we must recognize is 16 years of war. when congress approved the all volunteer force in 1973, our
country never envisioned sending our military to war for re than a decade without pause or conscription. america's long war has placed a heavy burden on men and women in uniform and their families. a second concurrent force ion. acting on the department is the worsening global security situation. we must look reality in the eye. russia and china are seeking veto pow over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions on their perfect riffry. north korea's reckless rhetoric and provocative actions continue concurrent force acting despite united nations censure and sanctions while iran remains the largest long-term challenge to mideast stability. all the while terrorist groups murder the innocent and threaten peace in many regions and target us. our third force acting on the department is adversaries actively contesting america's capabilities. for decades the united states enjoyed uncontested or dominant
superiority in every operating domain or realm. we could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and operate how we wanted. today every operating domain, including outer space, air, sea, undersea, land, and contested. contested. the fourth concurrent force is rapid technological change. among the other forces noted thus far, technological change is one that necessitates new investment, innovative approaches, and new program starts that have been denied us by law when we have been forced to operate under continuing resolutions. each of these four forces, 16 years of war, the worsening security environment, contested operations in multiple domains, and rapid pace of technological change requires stable budgets and increased funding to provide for the protection of our citizens and for the survival of our freedoms.
i reiterate that security insolvency are my watch words as secretary of defense. the fundamental responsibility of our government is to defend the american people, providing for our security, and we cannot defend america and help others nation is not both strong and solvent. so we in the department of defense owe it to the american public and to the congress to ensure we spend every dollar wisely. president trump has nominated for senate approval specific individuals who will bring proven skills to discipline our department's fiscal processes to ensure we do so. his first step to restoring readiness is under way. thanks to congress' willingness to support the administration request for an additional $21 billion in resources for fiscal ar 2017 to address vital war fighting readiness shortfalls. your support put more aircraft
in the air, more ships to sea, and more troops in the field to train. however, we all recognize it will take a number of years of higher funding delivered on time to restore readiness. to strengthen the military, president trump requested a $639 billion top line for the 2018 defense budget. this budget reflects five priorities. first priority is continuing to improve war fighter readiness begun in f.y. 2017. filling in the holes from tradeoffs made during 16 years of war, nine years of continuing resolutions, and budget control act caps. the second priority is increasing capacity and lethality while preparing for future investment, driven by results from the national defense strategy. our 2018 budget request ensures the nation's current nuclear deterrent will be sustained and supports continuation of its much needed modernization process. the third priority is reforming how the department does
business. i am devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense thereby earning the trust of the american people. we have begun implementation of initiatives directed by the 2017 national defense authorization act and are on track to enter into a full agency wide financial statement audit as required by statute. i urge congress to support the department's request for authority to conduct the 2021 base realignment and closure, or brack -- brac, round. i realize the consideration members must exercise in considering it but it is one of the most successful and significant efficiency programs. we forecasted a properly focused base closure effort will generate $2 billion or more annually over a five-year period. enough to buy 300 apache or copters, 120 f-18's,
four virginia class submarines. is keeping faith with service members and the families. talented people are the department's most valuable asset, but we must continually lance these requirements against other investments critical to readiness, against other investments critical to readiness, equipment, and modernization tone sure the military is the most capable war fighting force n the world. brended retirement and military health system and blended programs are essential to filth talent we need to sustain our competitive advantage on the battlefield. the fifth priority is support for overseas contingency operations, the f.y. 2018 president's budget requests $64.6 billion, focusing on operatings -- operations in afghanistan, iraq, and syria. increasing efforts to sustain nato's defenses to deter
aggression and global counterterrorism operations. i am encouraged by the willingness of our allies and partners to share the burden of this campaign. moving forward, the f.y. 2019 budget informed by the new national defense strategy will have to make hard choices as we shape the f.y. 2019 to 2023 defense program. the department will work with president trump, congress, and this committee to ensure future budget requests for sustainable and provide the commander in chief with viable military options that support america's security. i am keenly aware each of you understand the responsibility we share to ensure military is ready to fight today and in the future. i need your help to inform your fellow members of congress about the reality facing our military and the need for congress as a whole to pass a budget on time. thank you for your strong support over many years and for
ensuring our troops have the resources and equipment they need to fight and win on the battlefield. i pledge to collaborate closely with you for the defense of our nation and our joint effort to keep our armed forces second to none. chairman dunnford is prepared to discuss the military dimensions of the budget request. >> it's an honor to join secretary mattis and secretary nor quist here tonight. i'm honored to represent the men and women in uniform. it's because of them i can begin by saying with confidence the armed forces today are the most capable in the world. the competitive advantage we have enjoyed is eroding. a number of factors have contributed to that. suns 9/11 an extraordinarily high operational tempo has accelerated the wear and tear of our weapons and equipment. meanwhile, budget instability and budget control act have forced the department to operate with far fewer
resources than required for the strategy of record. as a consequence we prioritize near-term readiness at the expense of replacing aging equipment and capability development. we have also maintained a force that consumes readiness as fast as we build t we lack sufficient compass to the meet current operation requirements. we're rebuilding and maintaining full spectrum readiness. they have addressed the dynamic in their testimonies and i concur with them. but beyond the current readiness, we're confronted with another signature hallenge i assess to be near term. primarily focused on the threat of violent extremism, our adversaries and potential adversaries have developed advanced capabilities and these are specifically designed to limit our ability to protect power. is the critical capability necessary to defend the homeland, advance our interests, and meet our commitments. secretary mattis alluded to it today, russia, china, and iran
feel the wide range of cyber, space, aviation, air time, and land capabilities. these are specifically designed to limit our ability to deploy, mploy, and sustain our forces. russia and china have also modernized a nuclear arsenal while north korea has been on a path to build an icbm that can reach the united states. in just a few years, we'll lose our quantitative competitive advantage. the consequences will be profound. it will adversely affect our nuclear deter reince, our conventional deter reince, and ability -- ability -- deterren our ability to respond if it fails. we can maintain our competitive advantage with sauce stained, sufficient, and predictable funding. the f.y. 2018 budget is an essential step, however this request alone will not fully restore readiness or arrest the erosion of our competitive advantage. doing this will require sustained investment beyond
f.y. 2018. recommendations for f.y. 19 and beyond will be informed by the forthcoming strategy development. we know now that continued budget, or e base 3% above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve today's relative competitive advantage. ask for your support and while we do that we recognize the responsibility to main taint trust of the american taxpayer. we tyke that seriously and continue to eliminate redundancies and achieve sufficienties where possible. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and ensuring america's sons and daughters. with that i'm ready for your questions. >> you have been blunt in your assessment of russia as a principal threat to the united states. russia has been seemingly relentless in its provocations, buzzing our ships in an irresponsible and dangerous manner, flying long range
strategic bombers to alaska and violating the i.n.f. the president has been silent about this hostile action. there is much speculation as to why. i guess my question to you, mr. secretary, is do you believe that putin has any real interest in a mutually beneficial good state partnership with the united states. general dunford, how do you plan to respond to this russian ilitary provocation? >> at this time, congresswoman, do not see any indication that mr. putin would want a positive relationship with us. that is not to say we cannot get there as we look for common ground, but at this point, he has chosen to be competitive -- strategic competitor with us, and we will have to deal with that as we see it. >> general? >> congressman, last year we requested $3.7 billion in what
is called the european reassurance initiative. this year we have requested $4.8 billion. that money is designed to increase our presence in europe. we will increase the combat teams and the equipment. it increases the exercises we conduct in europe, all of which is designed to deter russia and ensure our partners we can meet our nato alliance commitments. we have changed our posture in europe, and our exercises and capability developed with our partners in response to growing russia capability and aggression. >> do you believe that russia is our adversary? >> i believe we have an adversarial relationship with russia. a competitive adversary relationship, yes, congresswoman. >> secretary mattis? >> mr. putin has chosen to be a strategic competitor, yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i was
disappointed by the significant proposed cuts. the fema preparedness grant programs. the program which helps the most at risk urban areas such as new york prevent and prepare for terrorist attacks would be cut by 26%, and the state homeland security grant program would be slashed by more than 25%. verall, the fy 2018 budget proposes a cut of $919 million to fema grant programs that really help law enforcement prevent and respond to terrorism and other disasters. to put that in perspective, we would cut vital funds to protect the top terrorist targets in the u.s. by 31%. which is equal to roughly half of what you are proposing to build a wall on the mexican border that is not needed.
state and local jurisdictions cannot effectively plan for, establish, and maintain their preparedness programs when support from their federal partner is inconsistent and subject to major deviations. mr. secretary, could you please share with us the impetus for proposing such drastic cuts to the programs? is it based on any sort of analysis that our states, major urban areas, in other urisdictions, are well prepared for terrorist threats ithout federal assistance? >> i would offer to you that in the 120 days, give or take, that i have had this job, i have visited a number of larger cities, new york, chicago, boston, mcallen, texas, a number of places.
met with the mayors, the police chiefs. i have been to a number of very large police and sheriffs organizations that have met here in d.c. a couple of months ago. met with them, talked to them a lot. i interacted with the national governors association that was here in d.c., which was 48 of the governors. the point is, the state and local men and women of law enforcement and the people we work with -- fema works with, are highly capable. there was a time i would offer -- before 9/11, we did not think much about it because terrorism had not really come to our country. many of these grants and initiatives were put into place immediately after that, but as you might imagine, the men and women in law enforcement locally and on the state level, with federal help, have risen to the occasion.
they are very, very capable, fema type people in the states and in deed many cities have them. i would not say these funds are not very helpful for those states and localities, but i would offer that it isn't as grim as you describe in terms of taking them away. what i mean is, if we take away this money, which the budget does some of that, their efforts against terrorism and other aspects of disasters won't immediately collapse. my offer would be that we were looking for money and we evaluated a number of different places, obviously, and we took where we thought we could take from.
but again, i am absolutely confident that the men and women out there in the lands of the united states have risen to the occasion over the last 15 years since 9/11 and are very, very good at what they do. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask the question, mr. chairman, but i am really surprised, mr. secretary, at your response. there is no question that in new york city these people are capable and are carrying out all their activities with distinction. i will check with them. i have not heard they don't need that money and that money is an essential. if new york is a target, it is beyond my comprehension that you could think it is ok to make those deep cuts. >> i didn't say they don't need the money. i just said we have found places where we think that the funds no longer needed in the way they once were. >> i will be happy to get back
to you, but i would like that response in writing, and i will check with the people who are responsible for these programs in new york and maybe have them document how essential these funds are. thank you very much. > thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your service to our country in the marine corps and your prudence and the president prudence in being careful in spending our constituents' precious tax dollars. in particular, i want to thank you and the president for focusing on restoring the rule of law, which is the one thing that unites us as americans. we understand in this country you and the president for focusing on restoring the rule that our liberty lies in law enforcement. that is a fundamental principle of who we are in the united states and we appreciate you focusing on that. i would like to say that congressman duncan spearheaded an effort to build a wall on
thethe border, and israelis know how affective a wall can be. it makes sense -- river country in west texas may not be as necessary, but above all, we appreciate your focus on law enforcement. existing law has been on the book since the 1950's that the individual crossing the southern border is subject to up to six months imprisonment if they enter the country illegally. on the second offense, they are subject to imprisonment up to two years. i want to bring your attention to a successful effort. in the del rio sector. a good friend of mine is well cquainted with them. in the dell rio sector, they used their good hearts and their common sense in a compassionate way to ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly and fairly, and as a result, before president trump
came into office and the promise of the enforcement of the law resulted in such a precipitous decline in illegal crossing, simply enforcing existing law, they saw the lowest level of illegal crossings since border patrol began taking -- keeping records, as i recall. we have worked together closely to support judge moses. i want to bring her to your attention. mr. secretary, the program she put into place is called operation: streamline. i encourage you to expand that up and down the border. as chairman of the commerce, science, appropriations committee i'll do my part to help ensure the department of just disresources are focused there with additional prosecutors, u.s. marshals to , make sure folks are processed and handled in a way that protects everyone's due process rights and ensure people are handled expeditiously by
mmigration judges. judges, because you are exactly right. we need to make sure those judges are on the border to handle people who come across and receive that notice to appear. i believe they call those permiso. in previous administrations, they got the notice to appear, and they were gone. disappeared, never to show up again. by simply enforcing the law and ensuring people show up in front of those immigration jums, or appeal before judges like judge moses, can you have a dramatic effect on protecting our southern border and assuring the free flow of legal goods and people entering the country legally. we all know we need that good relationship with mexico to have people cross back and forth legally and freely with goods and commerce and for workers. but it begins with law enforcement. i wanted to ask you, mr. secretary, about operation: streamline, if you are familiar with it, and what is currently
happening under your leadership if an individual is apprehended, and when and how dhs decides to give them expedited removal proceedings happening under your leadership before a judge like judge moses? >> i will get smart on operation: streamline, and it sounds like a need to get to el rio to visit. one of the things i have learned in this job, this immigration and is the most complicated -- if we try to make it any more complex and hard to understand, we could not have done it any better. but all sorts of categories, right? if they catch a mexican on our side of the border wall -- >> she will give them a week. >> they can say i don't want to enter the system, and they can go right home. one of the things we found -- an anecdote, but in talking to an officer, i think the second week i was in the job i went
down to texas and walked the terrain and the rivers edge with the real people who understand the legal mmigration, drug movement. the cbp officers, great men and women each. they said, we will find -- we will stop traffickers, mexican traffickers, on our side of the border. i have been here for 14 years and i know the names of many of them because we will pick them up, and they will say -- they will simply go back to mexico. whether it is one month or one year later, they catch them again and they go back. one of the things we started doing was holding them and in the process of prosecuting them for human trafficking. the cost then, and this is important in terms of reduction and the numbers crossing the border, the cost of going from say el salvador to the united states, the fare to travel in
the network and get into the united states, grew from an astronomical figure to the kind of people, simple people that we're talking about, peasants mostly from the central american republics, good eople, $4,000, live savings. an incredible amount of money to them. now it is about $12,000. they can't afford it. that's one of the factors -- that simple thing, starting to arrest and prosecute them. >> i want to mention that i also learned from judge moses that she cannot seize the assets from the smugglers. that is a law we need to ake. >> mr. secretary, i want to say thank you for what you do, what your men and women do, i appreciate it. i am from laredo, texas. i do not visit for a few hours and take off and think i know
the bet -- border better than those who have lived there all their lives. i have to say, throughout my time here. i have seen a secretaries come and go. we will probably see you come and go, with all respect. my only advice is, understand the system we are in. the executive branch. some of us might disagree with you. i don't think it is correct for you to tell members of congress to shut up if we disagree. some of us might agree with you than others, but i am just saying -- otherwise it will be a long term for you if you do that. i believe you did that 90 days after getting sworn in. i want to focus on the wall. i do not support the wall for several reasons. one, private property rights. in texas, we respect private property rights. it is dear to us, number one. number two, the cost. a regular fence will be $6.5
million per mile, compared to $1 million. i think mr. taylor, there is a lot of technology that works very well to the military that should work for us down there. that is number two. number three, environmental, the international water commission, there is a treaty between the u.s., about whether you can put up barriers. also, space. 40% of the people there are overstays. you can put the most beautiful wall there, but they will either fly in, drive through a bridge or come through a boat. the report that came out that homeland released two days ago, may 22, talks about overstays. in fiscal year, there were 630 visitors that failed to leave the u.s. that far exceeds the 415,000 people that came in across the border. so, more overstays than people coming across or who were
intercepted across the u.s.-mexico border. what was interesting according to homeland, there were more canadians that overstayed, than mexicans. i think your reports say that 20,000 canadians with expired visas are believed to still be living in the u.s. compared -- -- compared to 40,000 mexicans. and those stats are probably not correct or accurate, because i think you only looked at planes and boats and i think the visa stay should be one. number five, why i don't support the wall is natural terriers, , and i thinkrriers president trump in april knowledge there are natural barriers to the border. this is the most beautiful wall at the port of lucia. if you have seen big ben, those are walls. i don't think you can come in
and put another wall on top of this cliff that we have. i think you would agree with me. if you go down some the lower part of the river, the rio grande, which is the natural barrier, does not go straight. it snakes up and down, and that is my district down there. the u.s. side is the top part. look at the river and the way it snakes. i have taken a small plane from laredo to bronxville going a few miles an hour, snaking over. and it is going to be very hard to put a fence unless you take , private property rights that we have. all i am asking you is that you work with the local border patrol, worked with us, and just say that we can't just use the fence. we know what happened with the berlin wall, we know what happened with the chinese -- the great wall of china, we know
what happened with that. and i am just saying we have to be smart with how we secure the border. we spent $18 billion a year with border security. the last time we were together with chairman carter, we were in the center border with mexico -- the southern border with mexico with $80 billion we put , there to help mexico secure the border. $80 million compared to $80 billion. they stop or people coming across than the whole border patrol did. all i am saying is, mr. secretary, we want to work with you. i know it is a very difficult job you have. some of us have been doing this for a long time. we want to see legitimate trade, tourism, and not impede that, and we just want to work with you. just to conclude, my time is up, some of us want to work with you and please take advantage of our expertise. >> i am probably in dangerous ground, could i make a comment?
>> yes. >> two comments, really. since i have been in this job, everything the congressman has said about the border and where to build it, where not to build it, there may be places we do it, other places we don't, we have said that since day one. >> yes, you have. >> what you have said about the southern border, when i was on active duty helping the mexicans construct this border strategy and help them implement it, under the radar, quietly, and it has worked very effectively. they stopped 160,000 illegal migrants last year and returned , them to the countries of origin humanely. great progress. we stopped more than that last year, but the point is the southern strategy works. you have also probably heard me say that the one yard line stand out, does notay
work. the protection of our border starts 1500 miles south. everything you have said about what we should be doing i have been saying and thinking about for 120 days. my "shut up" comment. one thing, with all due respect, that is different between my experience in the u.s. military and my experience now, is that the men and women of the u.s. military you can throw rocks or , criticize and god knows we deserve some criticism. you can criticize the policy of what they are trying to execute in the world, but the one thing that we never hear -- certainly from this institution -- his -- is criticism of the rank and file men and women who put their lives on the line in the u.s. military every day. you never hear that. in this job, all i heard day in and day out, nazis, stormtrooper tactics, prejudice about the men and women, footsoldier's, if you
that stand on our border or inside our country and protected. that, told just ask criticize me, criticize the trump policies, but please recognize that my men and women are doing the same kind of thing a day in and women in the military are doing. give them a break, and that is what the shut up, it was about. >> i just need to respond quickly. let me say this. nobody has attacked the men and women. they are attacking the policy. i have been attacked as well, because you and i agree on a lot of things. i have been called some of those things, too. >> i want to welcome secretary kelly. this is a hearing on the department of homeland security's fiscal year 2018 budget. this is the third time that secretary kelly has appeared before this committee, the second time as the secretary of
the department, and we welcome you and appreciate your service to this country. many, many years of it. in lieu of my opening statement, i want to make a couple comments. by location, i am an accountant, -- by vocation i am an , accountant, so i have gone through budget meetings many, many times. i want to talk about the history of the budget of the department of homeland security. when you take a look at the the budget authority, the first fiscal year was 2004, and the department's budget was $36.5 billion. had that budget grow by inflation, today's request would be a little under $50 billion. instead, the total budget
authority is $70.6 billion, about a 93% increase. from my standpoint, that represents president bush, president obama, and now president trump, they realize the threat environment that america faces has become more severe. it is metastasizing, and they need more resources to keep this homeland safe. as much as i am concerned about the long-term budget situation in this country, the $20 trillion we are already in bed, we cannot be penny wise and pound foolish. i don't think i have seen an accurate assessment of how much economic loss we had because of 9/11. we need to do everything we possibly can, and that is the top priority of the government. i want to be completely supportive of the secretary's request. tough budget times, but we need to allocate the resources to keep our homeland safe. the next point i want to make is the dramatic change we have had
in terms of total apprehension. we have a chart here. what i have done, because we only have three months of history under the new administration, i have gone back and had my staff prepare a three -month moving average of apprehensions along the southwest border. and it is incredibly revealing. prior to the last three months, on average, we were apprehending a little more than 122,000 individuals coming to this country illegally. 122,000. and now, we are at about 46% of the previous four or five year average. that is a remarkable result. since taking over this chairmanship, and being on this committee i have been on this , committee looking into illegal activity on the southwest border.
i have said repeatedly that the worst thing we need to do is be committed to securing the border and a limit incentives for -- and eliminate the incentives for illegal immigration. i would say lax enforcement of our laws is a reason. under the new administration, we have committed to securing the border. i was a little concerned when people were taking credit for this reduction. i think that signal alone that we are committed to securing this border and will enforce our laws has had a powerful effect, and i think we are seeing the results right now. i commend the secretary for standing strong against severe criticism, and actually enforcing the laws of this nation. with that, i will turn it to our ranking member. >> thank you, and thank you secretary kelly for being here. you appeared here a couple months ago after being confirmed. look at the developments that
have occurred in the few months since then. you have had to be all hands on deck for serious issues facing the national and homeland security. on may 11, you met with the airline industry executives with concern over electronic bans in terms of international travel. we had a ransomware cyber attack that struck more than 200,000 computers in 100 50 countries, shutting down auto production in france, and closing doctors offices in britain. and of course, tragically on may 22, a terrorist bomber killed children and adults in england. these are just a few examples of why we are counting on you and why we respect the job that you have to do every day and how difficult it truly is. the importance of your work also speaks to the critical responsibility this committee has in providing oversight. i have never, ever known of a government agency that works better with less oversight.
asking hard questions is of course the way you do aggressive oversight, and i am to give -- and i am really, particularly pleased that you are not afraid to ask tough questions. it is who you are. you have been that way throughout your career. in fact, i noticed that in the speech you get to the coast guard cadets, tell the truth to -- i will quote you hear, " tell the truth to your seniors even though it is uncomfortable, even though they don't want to hear it. they deserve that. tell the truth. i know you will continue to speak truth to power, and i look forward to your honest assessment and how we can help you in that regard." while none of the three terrorists would have been impacted by the proposed travel ban, a lot of discussion in the united kingdom is about the government -- the conservative party's cuts in police resources over the last decade and how many fewer resources there were
on the ground to try and prevent those terrorist attacks. i am concerned that the president's budget plans to cut critical tsa programs at a time we cannot afford to let up on the security measures. a large portion of these cuts teams,en from the viper the critical response teams that are deployed throughout the country to provide critical assistance in securing some of the most attractive soft targets for terrorists in our country. the president's budget aims to cut the viper teams from 21 to -- from 31 down to just to cover 18, the whole country. the urban area security initiative, which has been a lifeline for major urban areas, they haven't so many soft targets because of the large population, those also have the cut. -- those have also been cut. the president's budget will eliminate the law enforcement reimbursement program, which provides assistance to law enforcement agencies who help
secure our airports. hundreds take part across the country, particularly for smaller airports, this is critically important. the president's budget will also/programs that provide critical assistance to our transit programs -- transportation programs. the grant program will be cut in half. the port security program will be cut in half. the president is calling for complete elimination from the terrorist attacks grant program. i am concerned that these priorities are not getting the attention they deserve, especially in light of what is going on around the world. i think we may be focused on the shiny objects known as the travel ban, when instead we need to be focused on how many people we have, in your terminology, boots on the ground, in terms of being able to identify and prevent these terrorist attacks. the difference in terminology is very important, because as you
know, the majority of drugs and other contraband come through our country through the ports of entry, and the cpb officers are responsible for finding them and stopping them. we cannot neglect our ports of entry as we try to increase resources in terms of border control and i.c.e. agents. there are a lot of important issues ahead of us. i have questions and i know the committee does, too. i cannot tell you what it means i cannot tell you -- i cannot tell you how much it means to all of us for you to come here and answer our questions. i hope the rest of the administration follows your example. >> it is the tradition of this committee to swear in our witnesses, so if you would please rise and raise your right hand. >> do you swear the testimony you will get before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? you may be seated.
>> secretary john f kelly, prior to joining dhs, he worked closely with u.s. law enforcement and dhs personnel in a coordinated effort to combat the flow of drugs, people, and other threats into the united states from across the southern border. secretary kelly's career has included extensive service in the marine corps, and served as assistant to two military -- -- 22 secretaries of defense. to 2 secretaries of defense. retirement toom serve the american people as secretary of homeland security. general kelly is a retired four-star general, a goldstar parent, america could not be more appreciated to have you serving in this capacity. we look forward to your testimony. >> ranking member mccaskill,,
distinguished members of the committee, every day, the department of homeland security protects the american people. it is a great pleasure to appear before you today to talk about the tremendous and and women of the department in the missions they carry out in service of america every day and night, 24/7, 365. anyone who understands the fundamental role of our government understands that the responsibility every day begins and inns with the protection of the homeland and the security of our people. no other mission is more important. no other consideration more pressing. none. the president's fiscal year 2018 budget allows us to expand our ability to protect our people. the world is a different place today. we can it no longer think in defense, we must think in terms
of the security overall of the homeland across the numerous domains of a potential attack and defense. the department of homeland security is making a difference in fighting the home game while the department of defense fights the away game. together with and because of the effectiveness of agency integration, with the fbi, nsa, dts, and a million state, local, and over one million state and tribal professionals, america today is safe. it is prepared in a way that most could not envision the day before a 9/11. but the plots to attack the country are numerous, the perpetrators, relentless. we need a fully funded budget that matches our mission. no more continuing resolutions. i think this budget does it. the budget requests $44.1 billion in discretionary funding for the department of homeland security. it also requests $74.1 billion for major disasters.
when you are talking about numbers like these, it is easy to lose sight of what is behind each dollar. but when you get down to it, behind each and every dollar i hard-working men and women who -- every dollar is hard-working men and women who have dedicated their careers and risked their lives to protect the american people. every dollar invested in the tools, infrastructure, equipment, and training they need to get the job done is an investment in prosperity, freedom, and the rule of law. above all, it is an investment in the security of the american people. recent events show you cannot invest too much in the security. terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in kabul, manchester, london, are perfect reminders of the dangers we face globally. they also demonstrate the need to do whatever we can to keep our people safe, that means getting better about verifying identity, making sure people are
who they say they are, and working with our international partners to raise their awareness and their defenses, and force them to do so, at to operate at the levels we work at. domestically, one of the most important enhancements of this effort is an enhancement passed into law 12 years ago by congress, one that most of our states and territories have taken seriously and already adopted. many others are working hard at compliance. in those 12 years, someone elected or appointed state and federal position to have the responsibility to safeguard the nation, have chosen to drag their feet or ignore the law passed by congress. i will not. real id will make americans safer. real id will soon be enforced at airports, ports of entry, and all federal facilities. there is a critically important 9/11 commission recommendation,
that others have been willing to ignore. i will ensure it is implemented on schedule with no extension for states that are not taking the effort seriously. for those states and territories that cannot or will not make the january deadline, they should citizens toeir require other forms of id compliant with the real id law. like passports, available of course from the state department. we need to prevent bad actors, regardless of race, religion, or nationality from entering our country. in recent years, we have witnessed an unprecedented spike in terrorist travel. there are more terrorist hotspots and foot soldiers now than any time in modern history. in syria and iraq, there are thousands of jihadist fighters who have converged from more than 120 countries. it is our superb military machine acting in coalition with other like-minded partners as they succeed on the battlefield in the caliphate, these fighters
returning home to europe, south asia, southeast asia, australia, and the western hemisphere. who knows what they are up to, but we can guess. they are hitting what they think are safe havens to continue their plotting and advance their toxic ideology of hate, death, and intolerance wherever they are allowed to hide. we expect some will look to travel to the united states to carry out attacks. with this context in mind, the president has issued an executive order to the entire executive branch, to prevent the entry of aliens who seek to do us harm. for the current court injunction, it prevents us from taking steps to improve the security of the homeland until we see how the court action plays out. while some discuss debate and argue the name kyle -- argued the name, title, professional men and women like me are in the business of limiting the
president's intent to secure the nation, and we are doing that. we will let the self-appointed critics talk about the name. i just hope the congress sees the wisdom of what the president is trying to do to protect the people, and that congress are willing to work with those of us in the business of securing the nation. and it has been my experience, with less than four months on the job, that congress is in fact committed to that. the injunctions have prevented us from putting a temporary ban on travel from aliens from six countries in states of civil sponsors ofte terrorism, and basically failed states. they are states that were identified in 2015 as nations of great concern. at the time, the expectation was those in the business of securing the nation lawfully, would focus additional attention on these nations and others in similar circumstances for accurate vetting. it has nothing to do with religion or skin color or the
way they live their lives, but the security of the united states and nothing else. these countries are either unwilling or unable to help us validate the backgrounds of persons within their borders. i can tell you right now, because of the injunctions, i am not only confident we are doing all we can to beat out potential weed out potential wrongdoers from these locations. the injunction also prevents us from looking into the information we need to conduct proper screening, not just from the six countries identified in the executive order, but every country across the globe. it also prevents me from conducting the review under the executive order, with the goal of improving security of our refugee program. bottom line, i have been prevented from doing these things that would keep america safe, and i anxiously await the court to prevent its action so i can get to work. the men and women of dhs will do everything we can and always
, always, always within the law to keep the american people safe. but the delay has prevented us from doing that, what i and those familiar with the threats we face believe we need to do to protect our homeland. again, sir, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today. thank you for your continued support and the committee's continued support for the great men and women of the department , and the mission we take so seriously. i remain committed to working with congress in protecting the american people. i have made changes to the organization since i have been the department had, -- , to do exactly that, to increase responsiveness, availability of witnesses. we have done all of that in a big way. i'm glad to answer any questions you may have, sir. thank you. >> you are watching c-span's review of the federal budget process. president trump submitted a budget request of $1.1 trillion to congress, and since then, house and senate has held
meetings with cabinet secretaries to work toward finalizing the budget for each agency. when congress comes back into session, there will be 12 legislative days to finalize the 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2018, which begins on october 1, 2017. next, we go back to june 13, and a hearing of the senate appropriations subcommittee on commerce and justice, where rodty attorney general rosenstein testified on the president's 2018 budget request. our 2018 budget request shows a strong commitment to the justice department's top priorities. it provides more funding to fight terrorism and cyber crime, to tackle the opioid epidemic, and to combat illegal immigration. it also gives us the resources we need to support our state, local, and tribal partners.
this budget reflects three important themes. number one, truth in budgeting. number two, increases in efficiency, and number three, focusing on priorities. these changes are critical and they support the executive order of the president to reorganize agencies, for the goal of increasing efficiency and effectiveness. the budget is honest one, eliminating from the books thousands of reviews leung funded and vacant positions that give the impression of the number of personnel on duty. these positions have been vacant for years or have never been filled at all. secondly, this budget seeks to identify areas where we can cut back without harming our mission . finally, the budget allows us to do our work with every tax dollar. national security remains our
highest priority. we price a wide array of threats , from terrorism, to espionage, to cybercrime. we also need to come to terms, senators, with the growing challenge which i know you are all familiar with. growing dark refers to law enforcement's increasing inability to lawfully intercept real-time communications and stored data. even with a warrant, as a result of changes in technologies, this severely impairs our ability to conduct investigations and bring criminals to justice. our law enforcement officers operate within the constitution, and they respect legitimate privacy interests. but when there is a legitimate need to access information and we have a court order or other authority, click safety is -- public safety is jeopardized when we are unable to obtain that relevant information. our department must adapt to evolving challenges.
the justice department is also committed to protecting the american people from violent crime, and from the adverse effects of illegal drug distribution, both of which are spiking at alarming rates. violent crime is rising in areas of our nation, and drug-related injuries and deaths are increasing across the country. senators the evidence of this is , indisputable. rising violent crime and increasing drug abuse are devastating many american families, and the justice department is confronting these crises head on and we need your help. the proposed budget provides law enforcement agencies with extra support, so they can target the worst violent criminals and drug trafficking rings. it also provides to 30 -- 230 additional assistant u.s. attorneys to focus specifically on our efforts to fight crime.
those in additional resources will enhance the abilities of federal law enforcement to fight crime, and keep our communities safe. we are focusing also on getting a licit drugs off of the streets through strong enforcement efforts, and through our drug take-back programs. in addition to that, we call on doctors, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical companies to take a hard look at their practices , and help us develop ways we can reduce the harmful overprescription of pharmaceutical drugs. the american people also expect our government to secure our borders and restore a lawful , system of immigration. the department of justice will do our part, along with the department of homeland security. our proposed budget provides much needed funding to hire 75 additional immigration judges and support personnel to reduce the unacceptable backlog in our immigration courts. it will also allow us to hire
more deputy u.s. marshals, and 30 more border prosecutors, so we can effectively apprehend and prosecute criminal aliens who threaten our communities. the federal government does not maintain public safety alone. 85% of law enforcement officers in our country, are not federal. working for state, local, and tribal partners, and we rely on them heavily. the men and women serving on the front lines are the first line of defense and keep our communities safe. they deserve our support. the budget maintains our commitment to these valued partners, and prioritizes grant funding to the programs that have proven to be effective. this budget funds important priorities, while helping us to achieve a more efficient department. we will do all we can to be good stewards of the resources. we have a duty to avoid waste money,afeguard taxpayer
so it will be available to fight crime and protect people. the justice department is home to 115,000 men and women who work every day to serve, protect, and defend the american people, and respect the constitution of the united states. this budget makes it possible for us to do our jobs with the investment set forth in this we will continue to work for all americans. moments, iemaining learned this morning about an incident in georgia, in which to correctional officers were murdered in the course of transporting prisoners, in georgia. i talked with our marshals service director this morning, and we have committed all federal resources to help catch those fugitives and hold the perpetrators accountable. my thoughts are with the victims and their families, and the
support of law enforcement personnel, who are working on this case today. an attack on any american law enforcement officer is an attack american law enforcement officer. senators, i'm happy to take any questions about our proposed budget, and i look forward to that. thank you. >> thank you. withintried to stay the budget area this morning. specifically, what is the department of justice doing to accelerate the hiring of new immigration justices -- immigration judges? >> this is one of my top priorities. i have been on the job for six weeks, and i learned pretty nearly and my tenure, about this extraordinary backlog in immigration cases. it is been one of my top
priorities to address that. 2018 budget includes $145 million to enhance or security. also, i believe 100 -- 450 people, judges and support staff to address that backlog. this also includes assistant u.s. attorneys, and $7 million to prosecute violations of immigration law. also, to address your question about the backlog, we are focused on that. we had waschallenges bureaucratic delays in hiring and filling vacancies. judges and to 75 new their support personnel, we are hiring moreing immigration judges to fill the
existing vacancies. it is a big challenge. we're going to make a top priority. to put an end to the increase in the backlog, and then more efficiently and quickly reduce that backlog. everybody that has a case pending in our immigration court deserves a resolution of the case. >> the fbi is in a time of transition. james comey fostered a number of improvements to make the fbi stronger, from the ways we collect and use intelligence, to our cyber programs, to leadership and diversity issues. we are going to continue to do our best to make sure we make progress in those areas. the threats we make are constantly evolving. we must constantly examine the way we do business, to ensure we are doing everything we can, in the best way that we can.
believe the fbi maintains a sacred trust the american people, to protect them and upholds the constitution. we do that with the precious resources that those people, and this committee, give us. the fundamental element of that sacred trust, is making sure we are always good stewards of the taxpayer's money. we have tried to be good stewards with the money provided, and have been conservative in our budget requests. andsk for what we need, when we need extras in certain areas, we don't hesitate to tell you. requests budget includes a $.7 billion in salaries and expenses. this will support 33,000 positions, 12,484 of which are special agents.
intelligence allen analysts -- our intelligence analysts. we need all of these people. they are the lifeblood of the fbi. they are over and beyond everything else, our best and most impactful resource. budget represents an increase -- a decrease of more than $400 million from the fy 2017 levels. this will result in a reduction of more than 1600 positions. let me shift briefly to program enhancements. i would like to highlight a few of the things we have requested. we have asked for $41.5 million to build on our cyber capabilities. these are investigative capabilities, collection capabilities, and analytic capacity. the frequency and impact of cyber attacks has increased
dramatically. we need to shift from reacting after the fact, to preventing such attacks before they occur. we have got to collect the best intelligence and we have to share it with our partners, both in law enforcement and the private sector, in real-time. hireo do that, we have to the best cyber tell. -- cyber talent. we are asking for $19.7 million to counter threats from foreign and also from insider threats from trusted employees and contractors. in the area we refer to as going dark, we request $21.6 million to address this problem. and this is much more than getting into locked devices or communications, which is a part of the issue but not the entirety of it. going dark is impacting our ability to execute lawful court orders, and that is a growing
problem. we still have our priority for violent crime. violent crime remains one of our highest priorities, for good reason. the challenges our partners at the state, local and tribal level every single day. we are asking for 33 positions to implemention, recommendations from the attorney general's tax force -- task force on crime reduction. we have asked for an additional $22 million to sustain our capabilities. that. period of time when a target becomes operationalized, has condensed over the last couple of years. and if you are concerned with modalities that concern vehicles, and bladed weapons,
that will further compress that time that we refer to as, from flash to bang. best tools against that threat is lawful surveillance. i will talk about one of our highest legislative priorities for this year, and that is the fisathorization of section 702. tos gives us the ability collect intelligence from foreign persons outside the united states. incrediblyigence is important. is a tool the entire u.s. government benefits from, and it is one, if we lose it, this country will be less safe. have a it we don't window into the activities of terrorists, spies, weapons to are relators -- weapons liberators, or others who might be coming after us. we might not know what is coming
our way. we are also asking for resources to disrupt transnational criminal syndicates. and, to maintain our biometrics technology center. these enhancements are important and necessary to keep the country safe. our leadership fundamental but the things about the fbi will not ever change. our commitment to keeping the american people safe, a fidelity to the constitution and the rule of law, and our core values, respect, compassion, fairness, accountability, leadership and diversity, and of course, adherence to the constitution. these are the values that have made the of the eye what it is today. we will stay focused on the doingn, we will keep
great work, with your support, because the american people deserve no less. i am happy to take your questions. >> thank you, director mckay. your salaries and expenses this 2017. $45 million below and this is the ascension that be omb made that we would under a continuing resolution, which fortunately did not happen. the request appears to leave the fbi with a hole to fill. how wouldask you, this fbi affect the fbi's ability to address terrorism and home grown violent extremism? >> it will certainly impact us in many ways. it is a broad and deep enough reduction, that it will touch every program. andill touch headquarters,
it will touch our field offices. it is a reduction that is not possible to take entirely, against vacancies. will a reduction that touch every description of the employee within the fbi. we will lose agent positions, analyst positions, and professional staff. we went through a. of sequestration a few years ago, where we reduced by 3000 positions during the course of sequestration. it has taken us quite some time to hire our way back up to full strength. we are on target to be very close to full strength by the end of this year, and the reductions you described will take us backwards a step. >> those are just recommendations. the subcommittee will have the final word on that. you'd much we supported work am a -- you know how much we support your work. the fbi requests and $8 million increase for surveillance of high priority targets. howis that a priority, and
is the fbi meeting current surveillance needs? >> we are in good shape right now. that $8 million is all personnel fundings. it essentially enables us to protect 78 positions that would likely have been added, to the reductions that have been discussed. the demands we place on our surveillance teams have just been enormous. as the number of homegrown violent extremists and counterintelligence targets rose, those folks that we need to keep a very close eye on, sometimes on a day-to-day, 24 hour basis, those resources become all the more important. sewer reduction in that area would be especially tough for us. area a reduction in that would be especially tough for us. have a terrible problem with young women being exploited and sold into slavery. it is a catastrophic and heartbreaking situation. can you talk about the work the fbi is doing to help fight human
trafficking? >> particularly in the southwest border area, where we have five field offices to address border issues, we have made a significant investment in terms of our safe streets task forces, in terms of the work we do with our partners at dea, dhs and others. we find ourselves looking at the same transnational crime groups that are engaged in narcotics trafficking, that are also engaged in human trafficking. so it is the combined work we do in the task force environment that lets us be as protect -- as productive as we can be. it is an area that we want to keep focused on very closely and make sure we have the right folks doing network. >> is the budget request satisfactory, in that regard? what resources do you need to beat back this terrible epidemic? most valuable
thing for us, at this point, is to restore those reductions that we were likely to sustain in 2017. >> what are the main challenges the fbi has encountered, regarding the supply chain, particularly the concern we all have with backdoors and trojan horses being built into hardware. it's an incredibly important area, and we have really tried to expand outreach across the government and across the private sector. we are in a unique position to see those threats come in, from the work we do in the counterintelligence side. spread thatd to word, utilizing things like the to letactices document, folks know these of the threats they need to be aware of, particularly across the government, as they acquire high-tech infrastructure for the symptoms. it has been great to see, in the
last several months, the new administration has a deep interest in addressing some of the things we have seen, i there are a lot of ways we can be more effective in terms of monitoring foreign investment, especially in our high-tech areas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm concerned the special counsel you on pointed -- you investigate ties between the administration in russia, will not have adequate resources. is the fbi -- is the special counsel being provided with all resources? had many interactions with the special counsel and his representatives. we have a great number of folks who have already been detailed have assured and i director mueller that we will do
everything necessary, and deliver the resources to meet the needs that he has, to do that work. >> thank you for the grantor. -- is the fbiye investigation continuing specialntly, with the counsel investigation, or have all the resources been transferred to director mueller's office? necessary resources to conduct the investigation that director mueller is now responsible for, have been cited to that effort under director mueller. the fbi continues to maintain responsibility for counterintelligence issues, writ all our foreign adversaries, and certainly including our russian adversaries. we still do work in the russia counterintelligence space, but we are careful to leave what is for the special counsel, to the special counsel. >> this legit reflects the president's strong personal
commitment to veterans. focusing our resources to what is most important to veterans, and suicide prevention. taking stepsy to meet the challenges that we face. we have established a the a count of billy office -- ava accountability office. we have recently removed to directors. i recently announced a new fraud, waste, and abuse prevention advisory committee. have also directed the bam's central office to remain under a hiring freeze for it minister -- a's central office to remain under a hiring freeze for its administration. access data for
their local bas, using an online, easy to use tool. no other health system in the country has this type of transparency. we have made it easier for veterans to fill out online health care applications. eightummer, we received times as many online applications as the year before. month, we were able to process a disability claim in just three days. i said that right. they did this -- a disability claim processed in just three days. offices, we will be completely paperless for claims by mid-2018. a few months ago, the call crisis line had a rollover rate and now that is less than 1%. we now have a new program to
offer proactive support to veterans who are at high risk for suicide. this is my top clinical priority. but to keep moving forward we are going to need your help. we have 1000 facilities that are the vacant or henri -- or underutilized and we are moving forward with 142 of those facilities. oureed congress to fund with thernization, system marti and used by the department of defense. -- system already in use by the department of defense. congress to authorize an overhaul of our broken claims appeal process. to draft a proposal to modernize the system, and we are pleased to see the house get behind the
bill. now we just need the senate to act. we need congress to ensure the continued success of choice for veterans. to ours are funding modernization efforts by choosing their the v.a. more than ever before. choice andfully fund help us modernize v.a. community care, for the veterans care program. the veterans care program will coordinate care, so veterans get the right care at the right time with the right provider, whether in ava facility or in a high-performing the air highnity care -- a performing v.a. community care facility. we look forward to your questions today. ulkin.nk you, dr. sh i have consistently said that any change in the appeals , much fix the 170,000
veterans who have claims pending today. would you commit to that? >> i would commit to that. towould v.a. be able accelerate decisions for those 470,000 appeals that are pending? , the board of appeals, are the ones we are most concerned about. thehe senate votes to move appeals modernization forward, we will have a process to expedite those at the time that the law passes, in moving forward. you are asking about legacy claims, and appeals. we do not have a plan to make significant progress on those. we are going to have to whittle away at them.
add 142 morell step to the board. that will allow us to make incremental progress. to deal with the backlog, we beforee looking at 2026 we dealt with the backlog. the one hope that i have, rather than adding a large number of isff to do with the backlog, that we will give current veterans who are in the appeals process the option of opting in to the new process. if they choose to opt in, is going to have to be their choice, and they would have their appeal dealt with in the expedited fashion, in the faster fashion. so that is my hope to accelerate the backlog, to encourage veterans who, unfortunately right now would have to we for decisions, would opt into the new process. >> i would like to commend you because you gave a patently honest answer to my question. not that i expected anybody is easy for
department heads sometimes to talk in department-ese. but this is not going to do much, even if it is adopted, to move those legacy claims forward. we will still have 470,000 lames -- claims out there. i hate to, i'm going to quote now when i heard secondhand. the v.a.been told, recently told the congressional plant office, the v.a.'s is to, quote, very gradually,", 470,000the 470 -- legacy appeals. being,eard your answer yes is going to be gradual, and
it is going to be 2026 before we got to it. add, because just we share the frustration, i find a really difficult to tell people who have submitted into the appeals process, they have six years to wait, on average, to get a response. so i have asked the question, how much more would it take to get that backlog addressed? >> the answer is? >> i am not sure you want to know, because i was astounded. around $800 million. do, on thisg we committee, will pale in comparison to the hell we are take $800atch if we million to handle those claims before 2026. appealsoing to clean up in the future with what this
budget proposals, but the legacy backlog will still be out there, the anchor is going to get louder and the frustration, deeper read so, we really need, you need to know the number. to be prepared to find somebody to do that. all is going to happen is, a lot of people are going to get worse, more and more anglers, less service. candid about being that. we have to make the hard decisions, and one of them is going to be getting those legacy claims done, and not letting them build up in the future. if we fix the went back there, and then we have another buildup, we are going to be in trouble. president trump
submitted a budget request of $1.1 trillion to congress. since then, house and senate have held committee meetings with cabinet secretaries, to work toward finalizing the budget for each agency. when congress comes back in september, the house and senate will have 12 legislative days to finalize the 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2018, which begins on october first, 2017. next, we go back to june 22, and a hearing of the senate energy and natural resources committee, where energy secretary rick perry testified on the president's 2018 energy department budget request. providesdget request $28 billion to advance our key missions, and focuses on includinginvestments, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons arsenal.
my goals are straightforward, strengthen our news clear -- strengthen our nuclear security and fulfill our environmental management commitment. i have just painted you a rather rosy picture. and while there is a lot of good news to report, there are other hard conversations we need to have. as you are well aware. are approximately 120 sites in 39 states that are --ring spent nuclear fleagle fuel or high-level waste. we have a moral obligation this
is a sensitive topic for some but we no longer can continue to kick the can down the road. i understand how important following the rule of law is. i have been instructed to move forward towards that goal. resumellion to activities for the yucca mountain nuclear waste depository and initiate a robust interim storage program. we also need to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. the project that is way over budget with no end in sight. billion, and in 2048 a completion date.
those used towards other priorities like national security or cleanup. waye is a better, cheaper to dispose of plutonium. we are using that process now. i look forward to having an in these daysue and months to come. thank you, administrator pruitt. it's my first chance to get to know you a little bit. i hope we can find ways to work together. --ope we can converse you the worse you into making changes. i would like to say that we certainly disagree with the administration's stance on the paris accord. i come from the state of maine where people have a lot of concerns about climate change. it has an effect on our lives every day.
bipartisan colleagues when the announcement was made. shocked that they would make this decision and worried that they couldn't trust the united states anymore. i want to get into specifics. we do these environmental issues and talk about the environmental extremis against businesses. as someone who comes from the state of maine and how much i hear about it from my constituents, climate change -- climate change is very real. it's not an environmental platitude. the highest landings in the world are where i live. i see lots of fishermen where i live every day. they look at me with fear in their eyes, saying, what are we
going to do? we're watching the migration up into the coast. and when they get to canada, we see disappearance in the shrimping industry. these are important to our identity. it they are important economically and i can't go home and say to people that this isn't really happening. don't worry about it. it will go away. we may disagree on the cause of climate change but doing something is critical. i represent a huge coastline and with sea level rising, we may not see it every day the way they do in miami beach but we see it when people try to get insurance or sell their home. when you talk about uncertainty in the marketplace whether it is fishermen or farmers, these are the people i deal with every day and they are looking at this with fear and concern.
they are saying to me and i'm saying to myself, what am i going to tell my grandchildren if we don't do something about it? on second one, i could go for 500 minutes and i am confident the chair won't let me do that. it kind as he is. but there is an economic question and may be one size doesn't fit all. whenerstand it's different the fossil fuel industry is in your backyard but i represent the tailpipe of the fossil fuel industry and i want to talk about clean air. we have concerns about the cuts in this budget. i am looking for anyway i possibly can to work with you. the people in my area have deep concerns. the attorney general sued and disagreed with these ideas. i know that we all get criticized at times for who support the work that we do. i want to take you it your word.
-- at your word. we are the most oil dependence state in the nation. we know how hard it is to get over our fossil fuel dependence. and we are deeply concerned about cuts, potentially, to independence. we are deeply concerned about the rollback of clean air rules and the cuts in the administration. one of the higher rates of childhood asthma. it is just a tragedy. being at the end of the tailpipe , the dirty air coming to our state. what do you think it's like to see the highest rate of emergency room admissions? or ozone alerts in the middle of tourism season. the air is going to be dirty right now.
in the about uncertainty marketplace. this creates a lot of uncertainty. a lot of our concerns, we should celebrate the downturn in co2 levels. hade are because we've higher fuel efficiency standards and we've invested more in clean energy. your budget does the opposite. in cuts commitment to states. we can't leave states holding the bag. they are funded to the federal government and we don't get that money back. think i represent what i'm hearing every day. and i don't see how more cooperation or more efficiency replaces those 4000 employees you are about to cut or puts money back into the programs we care about. >> let me say first that i look forward to us, as you indicated, working together. i appreciate you saying that and it's something i endeavor to do
as well. actually is a priority of our administration to focus on achieving better outcomes. pollutants,eria there are several. six. two of them predominantly impact asthma. the standard is better than any in europe. and we are making tremendous progress toward achieving good health outcomes. when i say celebrate progress, i think that we have to recognize recognized the success we have achieved. we worked with the states to get better data. and focus on compliance and assistance with those states. with respect to co2.
he said he wanted to continue engagement on this issue. with respect to continue leadership. we mention the progress we've made through government regulations. particularly, fracturing and horizontal drilling. on what we should be focused as a nation, as we generate electricity, using various forms of energy from coal, natural gas , we need to focus on the latest technology that reduces emissions in a very meaningful
leading anus on international discussion and exporting that type of technology. this is not a sign of disengagement. demonstrating real action for .educing co2 appreciate your thoughts and i hope it's not a sign of disengagement that we will continue to be focused on co2. i hope you can continue talking to me about that. >> congress did not address this. tremendous regulation. it has taken significant steps to reduce g hg emissions. when the clean air act was
it is in 1990, it is a glorious mess. we have to ask the question to the epa. we decided to address whatever objectives have been identified. we need to receive authority and direction and process. if there is a deficiency in those tools, we will advise you accordingly. it's important that we recognize that. >> i will ask real briefly, the
clean air act is very important to me. in california, it was the first state to start cleaning up its own air. before 1963, before the clean air act was even envisioned, california already started itsping forward to clean up air and step up pollution roles. there is a history of bipartisan cooperation. lewis was a congressman here and helped create the southwestern qualities. certainly, there are a lot of concerns about clean air and shared by governor reagan when he was governor in 1966. and provisions in california to
deal with it. we've had these waivers for over 50 years. >> that waiver is under review. this is something that is been granted. was actually preserved in the clean air act. achieving air-quality standards. it is something that we are committed to in the agency and the waiver is not currently reviewed by the epa. role.nk you for your new a lot of nice things have been said about the leadership from you in this administration from to rightsizing the agency.
and a want to associate myself with accolades and complements. have heard around this table and we all appreciate. we want clean air and clean water. our mountains and forests are second to none. but we are in energy state in west virginia. a human resource state with the hardest working people. predecessor did everything it could to put west virginia out of business. it is across the aisle, wondering about his 3200 employees, at risk of losing
their jobs. as a result of the prior administration, we lost 10,000 direct jobs. so many people on the unemployment line because of the actions. as the chairman mentioned a minute ago, i know i have been working here with this committee to try to use the power of the purse to influence the direction and the epa with policies. and i simply want to say thank you for creating signs of hope and opportunity for the hard-working people of west virginia. that areoal mines opening up. we have people going back to work to create a sense of hope and opportunity with their lives.
questions. if number one, i want to make sure it is clear for all to hear and see and listen. does this administration make it have and all the above energy policy? to look at how you generate things in this country, we need to have diversity. as we had 1% growth, there's not about gridcern stability and grid security. growth, we% to 4% actually have diverse portfolios and that includes the governor. it's important for energy security. only so much natural gas you can get to the pipe.
if you have reliance on any particular fuel source. clients.e client or to it your business goes away. it's important the american citizens know that the price per -- it is very competitive. the stability of our grid is important. it focus on using innovation and technology. we have used innovation and technology to receive -- achieve the lowest omissions possible. administration and you and the leadership role of the epa do see a future for coal? believe it is absolutely essential that we have a very robust fuel diversity and how we generate electricity in this country.
you cite that. it is absolutely all about strategy. think people on this committee talk about prescription drugs as a huge driver of health care cost. we need to make sure they are safe. but with generics, you stated this as critically important. with got to do a lot more the third less. you don't have to justify this. is, if we're going to hold you accountable, we have them manpower to do it. that's our job here to make sure you have the manpower to do it. and i get it. the fact that every agency and priorities in every agency. i hope you would be honest with this. it's a big issue.
to get this is something we should all try to achieve. but we need to be realistic on manpower. >> as you try to think through what would be appropriate allocations, rest assured i am happy to work with you. >> the entire subcommittee on your budget, i would love to give recommendations. i think this is an incredible driver in health care. generics have been one of the bright lights. so when we see hedge fund folks buying prescription drug companies, doing the kind of things senator collins talked contemplate this very issue. >> i want to talk about importation and prescription
drugs. there's been all sorts of efforts over the last 20 years. there has been bills put forth here. some good, some not so good. do you think americans should be allowed to import drugs from other countries. put toas been commissioners across both administrations. it is currently legal. that legislations existed .hrough i have not taken a fresh look at this question. 15 years ago, having been able to make that certification.
certification. that youin indeed would be manufactured. wax that is a legitimate concern. i think there is also a of americansncern being gouged for their prescription drugs almost of the point where i think we may be subsidized in other countries for their cheaper prescription drugs. montana, we hear about this issue a lot. >> i am trying to take steps to it.ess i don't think it's a debatable proposition. we are subsidizing drugs for the
high prices we pay here. that is not the trade representative. thank you for your answers. >> on transportation, we all share the same goal. to make sure the country's transportation systems are safe, dependable, and ready to adapt for new technologies. the president's 2018 budget represents a bold vision. and it has taken a closer look at programs that may not be needing their intended purposes. initiatives, we will better address transportation needs. programs, itn
provides steady state funding for a majority of other transportation programs. the budget provides new policy in several key areas. our transportation infrastructure is crumbling and in urgent need of attention. the president has proposed long-term reforms. they are regulated, funded. incentives for state local and private funding. and making sure federal funding is leveraged. $200 billion for infrastructure improvements of which a portion would be directed towards rural america. the fiscal year 2018 budget includes a proposal that represents a major shift for the faa. despite spending billions of taxpayer dollars over decades of
effort, the government has not been able to fully implement state-of-the-art air traffic control technology. the use paper strips to keep track of flight. using 9:00 a.m. 60 technology radar, for example. delays cost $25 billion annually. higher cost, lost productivity and a higher quality of life. our passenger traffic soared to over one billion annually. airfreight is expected to more than double over the next three decades. drones and unmanned aircraft systems have to be integrated to the national airs these. without change, the current air traffic control system would be unable to keep up. so this administration has proposed moving air traffic control operations to a nonprofit, nongovernmental,
independent cooperative. this also involves and solves a long-standing conflict of interest issue with the operating entity air traffic control regulating its own safety. worldwide50 countries have the structure of separating out air traffic control and air safety regulations. finally, the president calls for reforming some of our transportation programs like the capital investments program, the discretionary portion of the central air service and long-distance route. the president all co--- also recommends that we revisit the kaiser grant program, the infrastructure principles outlined by the president to highlight alternative ways to fund or the projects using a
different funding formula moving forward. it will also recognize the administration's commitment to rural america. thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the president's budget. i am actually 20 seconds ahead of time. being with me.r your proposal would cut both by 7%, which would see a funding reduction of 881000 and olympic national park. a reduction of 900,000. i am trying to understand these parks are already underfunded.
those personnel on the front lines, the right strategy and balancing budget. that is not a cut. secondly is parks. montana, alaska, connecticut. it is clear the front line is too thin. my assessment is that we have too many middle management and above. to the court nation with you, pushing more assets to the front line. every cost-cutting measure
previous to this has regionalized assets up and we find ourselves to short. more scientists in the field and less lawyers. at the stack, we are too heavy on the region. it has taken a toll on our parks. the best funds for the parks are through the door. visitors inillion the parks last year. , many of theem parts don't even follow the tier system. we had a look at revenue as well as public-private partnerships. we are looking at some of our parks on transportation. yosemite --
regnier has challenges in your park. how to move people and maintain the experience of the park. find the budget is so focused on the oil and natural of revenue that you are neglecting the fact that it generates $887 billion a year. 59 billion in state and local dollars to4 billion the government. on $18 billion depending price fluctuations. that is going to generate a lot more revenue for us. >> we have developed a carefully crafted budget.
approximately $322 billion. years,the prior fiscal the spinning level of approximately $339 million. we also wouldn't need any directed move or re-stacking funds. in fiscal year 2016 and 2017 respectively. reduce the cap from $117 million to approximately $111 million. thinking about how the commission functions. emphasized that we are
an entirely fee funded agency. someone is paying our freight. that someone includes small businesses. it is imperative for the sec to be fiscally responsible and to avoid unnecessary spending. i firmly believe that if we refrain from regulatory , results that benefit everyone. and while we have experienced staffing reduction, they have said the fcc is more productive. year,ewer staff in last we've managed to pursue an aggressive schedule for open meetings where commissioners consider the highest profile matters. we are averaging more than double the item.
we expect this increased productivity to continuing to fiscal year 2018. since i became chairman in january, we would be aggressive with the staff already identifying substantial reductions. as we move to fiscal year 2018, we will focus resources here. the mobility fund phase two, auctions to bring fixed broadband and 4g lte to more of rural america. tasks, butomplicated
the broadband auctions task force has a solar plan for getting the job done. if i may say, i appreciate your initiative. this would be a substantial effort in connecting uncertain americans with digital opportunity. we will ever commit policies to ensure american leadership and 5g wireless networks. to use the next generation television standards. we will also move full speed ahead on implement in the spectrum pipeline act. third, we will concentrate on protecting consumers and public safety. combating illegal calls to improving video relay service and hard of deaf hearing americans. when it comes to public safety, we will continue to support those on the front lines across the country. protect all of us each and every day. will focus on
reforming the fcc's processes. the american people deserve to have a transparent and responsive regulator. we have made substantial progress on this front. there is much more to do. and do it we will. how the sec about can bring digital opportunity to more americans. i believe that this budget request will help us advance these goals in a fiscally responsible way. it thank you once again, madam chairwoman for the opportunity to discuss the proposal. >> i did want to come here. >> a look at the trump budget proposal.
want strong and meaningful rules to protect consumers and small businesses. they want rules to protect the internet for ideas and expressions. burlington, i have small businesses that tell me why rules are so important. they don't want any special treatment. in anust want internet equal playing field. they can use the internet to expand businesses without fear of prohibited fees of being squeezed out. started is a very small company and said they -- they don'tcial want to be in a position where small companies can squeeze out and big companies will support it. otherwise, you will never see a small company.
rules, it concerns these small businesses and millions of americans. the pay to play deals could derail startups and small businesses, stifling innovation. the rules in the fcc landmark net rules ensures the internet remains an open and dynamic platform for free speech. trumpmediately president appointed you. the fcc did an about-face. the open internet rule, ensuring that large corporations, they maximize profits at the expense of hard-working americans. many of us have that in our
states. troubled, under your leadership, the sec has turned from an agency whose primary objective is to ensure ,ompetition in the marketplace it has been co-opted by moneyed interest and big businesses that can squeeze out competition. i hope you will reconsider your ill-advised decision to undermine open internet rules, undermining net neutrality positions to help consumers. i was in the fcc. and i'm disappointed but sadly that theised republican leadership and president trump have decided corporate interests over consumers with a rollback common sense broadband privacy
protections. i had urged my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. there are a lot of small businesses that are going to be just killed by this. if corporate interests are placed above the interests of consumers, that is unacceptable. america deserves better. >> at this time, we will proceed with questioning. my first question is about something that was alluded to in helpingtement about states figure out the best way to deploy broadband, eliminate some of the barriers, this is something we've been working on.
i would like to say my state of west virginia did pass a semi-controversial broadband expansion. >> we have taken aggressive steps to work cooperatively with states to make sure that we put broadband deployment front and center at all levels of government. soon after i was designated as chairman, the broadband advisory states helping to find a model code. off the count.d now that we've met with a number of state officials. there are a number of them, a chance about how we've migrated on ip-based system.
,ork well with governor cuomo and subsidies to upstate new york. a lot of states share that interests. >> some comments about commissioner cliburn and commissioner o'reilly made, coming at it from different angles. i wanted to give you a chance to respond, or anybody, really. and the statements on possible agency structures. >> first, they offered governmentwide guidance in respect to the figure and we crafted our budget consistent with that guidance. we wanted to make sure we had our eyes on the prize to make sure the fcc discharges its core responsibilities even if it might be lower.
that is why, despite the fact that have fewer staffers, we've been able to focus on doubling the output with respect to meeting items where we consider the high-profile issues. it reforms to our connect america fund program to make sure it is fixed broadband and it reaches certain americans. we also considered structural changes to make sure we use the assets that we've got in the most effective way. gave on thisech i topic, i proposed an office of economics and data. economists are sprinkled throughout the various bureaus and offices. some are very busy and some are not as busy. the lawyers have an office of general counsel. centralize the economic function to consolidate s we've got inist one office. to bring economists
to the agency and would give an academic environment to consider bigger picture things that generated some of the most innovative ideas the fcc has. we are doing the best we can to meet those core responsibilities with the constraints that are been presented to us. commissioner cliburn, you and i have talked about this. we have resources there for broadband deployment. state withues in our the initial stimulus package, the deployment of those funds as well. what are you seeing in terms of coordination with the fcc? is this an area that needs to be worked on? >> both, to be honest with you. board initiative framework. we are constantly in contact with our state counterparts with how well we can do and how we can build better relationships.
the chairman was right to point andthat it was started gives a blueprint for people to weigh in. i will also say that there is only one local representative. and i am hoping that we continue to do -- work with local authorities. work with us. come up with an infrastructure consortium that will better and in a more streamlined and targeted way, get everybody's voices at the table. come up with a collaborative framework and really do what you and i want. i think there are better ways we can do it. and only through a concerted effort, listening to state and local voices. >> thank you.
commissioner, just an opening concern. there is widespread concern now that the administration has been choosing not to respond to requests for information from democrats which counters a long-standing tradition of help by both parties as to how federal agencies have got to respond to questions. will you commit to responding to americans? >> absolutely. i have done so during my tenure as chairman and i will continue to do so going forward. >> i appreciate that. lawident trump signed into a new act that nullify the sec's previous rules that nullified movement on internet privacy. you believe it is the core challenge outside the jurisdiction. what privacy protections are
currently in place? should there be privacy protections for consumer privacy on the internet? and how do we achieve a restoration of or a move? >> i appreciate your concern as well as the courtesy extended to me. the baseline expectation, i daresay that sensitive information will be protected when a consumer goes online. the federal trade commission was the cop on the beat, so to speak. they had a consistent framework across the internet economy. after 2015, when the fcc deemed beecommunications carriers commentators, we stripped them of jurisdiction. it left a hole in terms of privacy protections. whichn see one of
requires telecommunications theiers and that's because rules on privacy of never gone into effect. established guidance which provides guidance to the industry. we want to protect consumers as best we can and we want to make sure that regardless of what agency's handling the issue, we want to make sure the consumers protect it consistently. >> you think additional action is to be taken to provide that? the federal trade commission has jurisdiction over everyone else in the internet economy. that is why i'm committed to working very closely with other members of the federal trade commission to make sure we have a consistent framework. area is proposed
net neutrality, a record-breaking number of americans filed comments. it crashed the sec system and the phone system in my office. it indicates there's a lot of americans with strong views about trying to keep the internet open. how will you consider the public comments you receive? and how will the commission way the voices of americans that have serious concerns about internet freedom? reason is part of the why we're having the public conversation. they could've chosen to proceed through declaratory ruling, that it was noll and void as a matter of law. it's important to have the comments prescribed by the procedure act. we had a full 90 days of public comment before the vote to allow for that robust public -- public
comment. when the comment period closes, we will take stock of the terrific staff and figure out if the sec should move ahead. it will begotten guided by the principles of substantial evidence. by the fact that are in the record and the motivation for public interest at the end of the day. >> i have one last issue i want to briefly raise. i find myself wondering who is the referee on the field in the cop on the beat when it comes to broadband internet access? with the passage of the cra and the direction we taken, i honestly am not an attorney. ison't think anybody monitoring that.
customer ands a for the millions of others that are. i've got the other question? privacy, net neutrality and that their concerns will be taken seriously. >> i am hopeful that the comments will be taken seriously by this body. people take the time to weigh in. a government agency, we are responsible for doing the will of the people. recorded program of hearings that you can find in our video library because we are going live to texas where we are standing by for governor greg abbott in preparations for hurricane harvey which we expect to begin shortly. in the meantime, we will show you a portion of this morning's washington journal.