work. while many front-line officers and agents across the agent are often through the use misuse of the funds are not tolerated. allegations of misconduct that are raised by employees are typically provided to be handled by the component affairs offices and/or the office of inspector general in conjunction with components of the human resource office. they found to have engaged in the misconduct the subject disciplinary action. the office of internal affairs conducted a series of investigative inquiries regarding the improper use by specific entities. internal affairs, field offices in washington, d.c. that houston texas, san diego california and seattle washington conducted the

investigations at specific border patrol headquarters, training and peace and the commission situation room. although the office of the special counsel received complaints that overtime hours compensated were not being worked, the allegations are proven to constitute criminal or administrative violations our investigations did not substantiate any allegations that employees had received the compensation for hours that were not worked. the investigations did however substantiate aspects and questioned whether it was the appropriate mechanism for specific overtime compensation. in short, the investigations determined that work was conducted and importantly even where it wasn't the proper mechanism, they have an had an

obligation and employees have an entitlement to be appropriately compensated for the overtime hours worked. the dhs and cbp have taken steps to address the situation. january 27 secretary thompson issued a memorandum to take immediate action to suspend certain categories and employees on an interim basis. as a result approximately 600 headquarters and personal mouth and full-time trainers and employees. after additional review on may 23 of the deputy secretary within 30 days to address the compliance issues. they would also work with the management of directories to dio develop the departmentwide directive formalizing these efforts and reforms.

the directive would include requirements for independent audits of the records and mandates the disciplinary measures for those who violate the policies in the future. until such a time we can address all of the come client issues, cbp, leadership has to record additional measures such as a comprehensive position review of the eligibility to eliminate the use where the available evidence suggests that use is impermissible. churning carper, ranking member, senator tester to do for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to answering your questions. please proceed.

i'm pleased to have the opportunity in the ongoing work to address widespread misuse of overtime payments to the dhs employees. i want to acknowledge the overtime team many of whom are sitting behind me. it's over $37 million in the misuse of the tent to the co-pay. the special counsel october 312013 communication to congress and the president outlined long-standing concerns about the misuse of administrative overtime. this is an issue first addressed in 2007. the communication in october, 2013 pounds into significant debate on the legitimacy and the philadelphia of the payments and in particular within the cbp.

encouraging this type of discussion with the goal of rooting out waste an the waste d achieving meaningful reform is at the heart of the mission. as it is stated in the october 31 with abusive overtime pay is a violation of public trust and waste of government funds. it's incumbent to take effective steps to curb that he views the lakers the sex abus abuse and tt are working overtime. since october of 2013 and particularly in response to the subcommittee hearing in januar january 2014 the dhs has taken steps to place better controls. this includes decertifying some of the physicians were employees shouldn't be collecting the payments. while it's taken many years and more needs to be done we are encouraged by the steps that they are now taking.

in addition we are also pleased congress is hoping to find ways to solve this long-standing problem including through legislative reform. while we do not have a position on the border patrol payment act of 2014 the update today will provide some context for the committee as it considers the legislation. in particular i want to compare and contrast recent reports that were prepared and set th sent tl and factual framework for the discussion. these were a response to whistleblower disclosures and the forfeiture office in san diego california into the cbp station in laredo texas. of the whistleblowers in these cases and 14 others that came separately from locations all around the country have basically the identical disclosures that border patrol agents or enforcement officers claimed two hours each day but

the extra two hours were unlawful because they don't meet the requirements. the reports again prepared substantiated the core allegations. the report confirmed that the agents in the locations just extend the regular ships by two hours every day routinely and that is in violation of the rules require unpredictable or irregular law enforcement or compelling reasons to stay on duty. in addition to the across-the-board substantiation of the misuse, there are key differences in the report that are worth going through and these are based on the duties of the agents in the location. i want to start by addressing the border patrol agents in texas. the report noted that the agents claimed in order to complete the post ship work necessary to travel back and forth from the border assignment to the stati

station. the agents that were interviewed indicated it cannot be completed in eight hours. the border patrol managers insisted on the report that in bullying ten hour shifts is the most cost-effective approach to secure the border even if that means misusing it as it is currently used. if congress considers proposals to address the misuse they may want to consider the argument in support of the shift and the demands on the agents like laredo texas. the reports on san diego california and the similar report addressing the abuse at the training facility in georgia presents different issues and they illustrate how broadly the misuse extends in the cbp. for example the report states some border patrol agents in san diego work as pair illegals. the border patrol agents assigned to duties to work a scheduled ten hour shift and

claimed two hours daily just like on the field. the agents in the parallel section of the same duties in the section referred to as the civilians. for example a pair of legal age and send out notices on the properties edito addressed correspondence and do other tasks for the efforts but they are basically in an office setting. the non- border patrol agents with the same duties are not eligible and do not worked ten hour shifts yet they sit side-by-side with thosside bysig for ten hour shift. so again if the congress considers the reform act may want to consider whether and to what extent the reform should cover border patrol agents assigned to paralegal or other roles where the non- border patrol agents have the same duties that are not eligible. the same issue is present with instructors at the georgia training academy in the detail

in my written statement. i hope this information is helpful to the duration and i would be pleased to answer your questions. thank you very much for having me. >> thanks to all of you this will be broadcast on c-span so people will change this around the country later tonight or tomorrow. who among these witnesses actually explained this so that if someone watching on television, somebody who is maybe not even here on this committee somebody may be stumbled into the room will understand what is the problem that we are trying to fix and don't use acronyms to use just regular language and explained what is the problem that we are

trying to fix? >> we are trying to get ourselves in a situation where they are sufficiently ready and capable and authorized in whatever format to engage in the post activities so all of the agents are scheduled for eight hours a day and if you are on a factory floor and your boss came in at the end and said i need you to stay someone isn't coming in for the next shift they would ask you to perform the same activity for the subsequent eight hours and in most factory settings, that would be doubletime, that would be considered overtime. we do things at the end of that prepared the rest of the team there seems to be an exchange of information to the government calls that overtime. it's more complex as it relates

to the administrative overtime because the statute allows for individual agents to assess what mission requirements are in front of them and innocence self deployed against the work in front of them. it's a good thing it was established because it allowed the agents to collect the work even though it might have been over. it allows people not to watch the clock if there is work in front of them that is necessary they can do that. but the legislation proposes to continue that practice but it covers all of the work post shift so whether it is chasing a group or arresting people or preserving the chain of custody for the evidence or informing the shift for the things that are in an administrative setting that prepared the next team to be more capable in the shift and it's important to recognize that in the setting and what's

contemplated in the legislation to compensation for the first hour of the shift and for the tenth hour in this configuration would be the same rate of pay. >> what concerns have been raised and you can answer this if you want. but the concerns about abuse can help these abused or reworded people that haven't been rewarded in this manner. could someone talk to that for us next speak to that? and you might be the best person to do so. talk to us about those concerns. what has the department tried to do about this on their own and then talk to us about the legislation. what are the concerns? >> the witnesses will be in a better position to discuss the changed circumstances and why it

is this overtime authority is being misused but in general decades ago when they were first developed the idea was that the border was big into there were not a whole lot of agents and so if somebody needed to stay after hours to arrest somebody or follow a lead than they were able to do that and they didn't have to report back to headquarters and call their boss and ask can i stay on the job. now the situation is changed into there are more agents and the border hasn't grown but technology has been developed quite a bit grade so the way the border is being guarded has changed significantly and i'm way out of my way talking about law enforcement issues but now it is much more regular and routine and predictable in the way that the agents are being told to fulfill their duties and so the legal and statutory framework that allows for the overtime compensation says that it has to be unpredictable but when you look at the reports

that have come in from across the country basically the way that it's being used is the opposite of how it was intended. it's routine, it's two hours a day and in contrast to the rules that require air regular unpredictable and you can't control if you can't manage it and so there is a legal problem in the way that it's being used and then we've had a secondary allegations that were addressed by the testimony that said people are staying on the clock just to fulfill those hours so they can work a ten hour day that they are not doing any work into those allegations to date have not been substantiated that basically people are goofing off, they are surfing the internet giving the extra two hours and not doing any law enforcement work and that's been a concern, one that we haven't

been able to pin down but that's a secondary concern that's going on here. >> the next question is what candidate would do to make sure that we have the border patrol officers fairly to make sure we have the resources that we need what candidate would do, what have they tried to do to address these issues? >> i think previously paul mentioned the memo of january 27 which suspended the specific categories. prior to that and since then, the department and others have looked at a position review to try to discriminate which of the job categories specifically in the border patrol are still eligible given the rubric and which ones are not and so that suspension went forward january 28 for those discrete

categories and the physician review with additional training has been authorized and deployed to the field. we need to put ourselves any place on the subsequent memo from the deputy secretary ourselves in any place to bettr document the actual and correct use even in the field where it's understood that the biggest user but there are other problems in the way that we've been documenting the use. and in the other categories that are referenced in the allegations and the findings of the investigations there has been an overall generalization of how it's been authorized to we've gotten any place that was used in the environment.

it's about the work that's being done as regular or otherwise. so the work is still there in each of the environment both in the field and at the administrative and training regimens. how would the legislation that the senators tester and mccain crafted, how would it address the concerns to the folks that work on the border patrol and taxpayers and are there any other consequences that flow from the legislation and the idea we are told that this is a legislation that was saved. that is a lot of money into thet the same time effectively put

another 10,000 to 1200 border patrol agents on the board. that is an attractive combination so want to find out how that works. you were in fact told that he would have a guaranteed overtime it was back in 1997 and i don't remember what the specific announcement that was on the website was we send recruiters out to different college campuses into different areas and is at that time we were told we would earn 25%.

>> i understand that' that the expectation. i'm not critical of i just want to get it in the record. >> you said you need t that youo reform the post shift activities. what about jobs that don't have post shift activities? >> we are talking about where the suspensions are now in the training environment. people regularly have assignments that carry them over an eight hour shift has to be a downward of their shift. i will give you some specific examples. over the weekend i was on several conference calls dealing with a situation in which we were moving individual unprocessed illegal aliens from

south texas mainly el paso and specifically tucson. so arranging for the flight that was being coordinated not just a bite me and my team but arranging for the flights and arranging for the destination location show that it was prepared and sufficiently staffed by the border patrol agency and others in the agency and then giving the specific instructions to the rio grande valley sector -- >> i understand the fact. your testimony is all of the departments, all the management, all the training facilities need time in the management or the training facility is going to have at least two hours of overtime. >> i think they regularly exceed the shift they are a signed for the purpose of preparing for the classroom or this work that we

did. we were managing other incidences at the same time that require cross sector coordination. >> what about the military. they are doing this stuff all the time. >> to me it is incomprehensible that somebody in the training fofacility needs to be working n extra two hours a day. that either says we have poor management or structured the force right. so it may require a different structure but what i am saying is the academy curriculum is an eight hour day instructors need time to prepare for the intake of the students. >> how long have they been instructors? is it an individual -- we sign up hundreds of people at the academy and if they stay for rotations of three to five or

longer. the portability comment was about having people who have sufficiently spent time they struggle on a day-to-day basis is good and desirable and necessary to develop those people. people are successful in that environment and they make the best staff officers. when we push the requirement of downrange they are sending and receiving the information and have sufficient experience to know what it means that is the business model for us even the

administration assistance would need to have two extra hours and even the janitors in the training facility. >> when you ask people about the administrative office is getting two extra hours a day and all of them have jobs and i would rather go back to the labor portion of this and pay them or increase the number so that we adequately reflect. i find it hard to swallow that everyone networks that management at the border patrol and everyone in the training facilities that the border patrol have a need to have 20% more, 25% more time to get their job done and that says we are not staffed correctly or we are managed in properly.

>> at the headquarters that i manage we have a light footprint is about 200 officer corps people. >> but if you bring somebody in to train or you wouldn't have trained so make the point you have to have two extra hours at the end of the day to prepare for tomorrow in the training anyway it just doesn't make sense. my question is the assumptions of which we are doing this don't pass muster for common sense. your testimony is everybody needs an extra two hours a day to get the job done and that's whether they are on the border or not. and i'm not sure that even with your statement that you can justify it. how many allegations have your

office received? >> 16 at 16 different locations. >> when did they allege that it wasn't just being mis- buil thit it was actually not being worked by some agents like surfing the internet or hanging out? >> some variation was made in those cases. >> they cannot substantiate allegations that they were billing and it didn't actually work. >> i will withdraw the question. they involve the cases where they are working alongside the officers or other civilians who are not entitled to overtime p

pay. didn't they have the same jobs as those that were not agents? >> that's why i think the framework that has been put forth has been helpful in this conversation. i can go into more detail in the training facility for example the border patrol agency testified they were in the instructor position so they needed ten hours a day to get the work done and then sorry for the acronym but if the customs and border protection officers who are not eligible that are in the same instructor position they said that they routinely testify that they could get the work done within eight hours. >> has the management ever tried to stop the agents from working past eight hours a day? >> i'm not aware of any. >> describe for me your

investigation of the referrals in terms of those people who were not working how big you could go about the investigation to substantiate. >> the office of internal affairs you conducted six separate investigations regarding allegations of misuse by the cbp employees, and each of those investigations are internal affairs agent collected all the relevant documentary evidence that was available. we conducted interviews with all of the relevant employees and interviewed complaints and air were identified and interviewed all of the available witnesses and employees who were allegedly to be missed using the compensation system.

we documented of those steps in at least one case conducted surveillance out in the field. >> described that. >> they were in the field watching employees. >> were the employees aware? >> no, they were watching to see what tim time they reported ther work and what time they left work and then comparing those activities with the hours that were documented. once they are complete all of the investigative activities are fully documented. the investigative reports went through a series of management reviews within the office of internal affairs booth at the field office level as well as the headquarters. once our internal affairs managers were satisfied that the investigations were adequate and

complete, the investigative reports were subject to a second level of review at the office of the chief counsel and once that level of review was complete, bug reports were forwarded through the leadership to the office of the special counsel. >> but they were aware in general but it was a hot topic. ..

>> okay. i'm way over time. senator tester. >> it's perfectly all right. i will just start out talking about the benefits of the bill and we will get into some meet here to second. i think all of us can agree that this is an antiquated system set up 40 years ago that doesn't doesn't meet their needs today. i think the border patrol has come to us asking for reforms. i think it's appropriate that we listen to their work that they are doing in the field. i went through border station several times but i have never packed a gun on the northern border and face what you guys have face putting your lot lives on the line every day but yet

coming to us in support of the pay cut and we will get into that in a second. i would just say one thing this bill does and it does many things is it gives stability to the hours they need a net stability and ours is very important when you have folks watching when the ship goes off. at any rate, i would ask you deputy chief boat till leo does the cbp support this legislation? >> yes, sir. >> how about you mr. jeb? is your organization supportive? >> yes sir. speak for both do you believe this legislation increase the border patrol's operational capacity and its effectiveness? >> ill will.

>> i don't believe it will. i know it well. >> okay. will it help or hurt recruitment and retention of border patrol agents? >> i think it will help. >> it will help. >> does it provide more certainty for agents and their families? both of you. >> agreed, it does. >> absolutely. >> and we are probably going to get into cost savings than a minute it does your group and your your agency believe that this saves money? >> it does. the key provision of illuminating fosc for overtime work as the workforce is now entitled would save us considerably. >> okay. i want to talk about training for just a little bit. who do you use for training?

>> there is a variety of assignments at the academy that some of the instructors are in fact fort patrol agents that teach operational aspects of the work in the academy setting. >> okay and you said these are eight hour sessions? >> the curriculum is eight hours plus lunch etc.. >> okay. one thing that i would really like to point out is that if i'm on the northern border and somebody asks me to become a trainer and by the way i applaud the fact that you guys are using mortar patrol agents to train with. there is no way i'm going to take your reduction in paid to come here and i think furthermore if in fact, if in fact you are using agents that solves a problem that i have. with a lot of agencies that actually have people in training positions that don't know what's going on out in the field and

you are using folks who know what's going on in the field to train the folks that are going to be out in the field. is that correct? >> we use lawyers to teach the law. we use pt instructor to teach physical tanks. we use border patrol agents who have driven in the field and know how to operate vehicles etc. and the whole range of operational technics top agents as well. >> senator may i? >> i taught at the academy. i've never gone to the academy phi would lose 25% of my pay. >> okay. we are currently in this day and age using -- we didn't bring us up to use unmanned aircraft and drones to secure our borders and we have been successful in this technology to fight against terrorism. the question is that with this age of technology why do we need more? >> senator the technology is fantastic but the technology does not arrest anybody.

when i'm dealing with groups of illegal aliens i am dealing with anywhere between 20 to 40 persons and those drones cannot put hands on those individuals to arrest them. normally when i'm dealing with this groups it's me and one other person. so the drones do a phenomenal job of spotting the groups but now i have to get to the groups and i have to actually arrest them. those drones can't do that. that's why we have to have the manpower to a -- manpower to effectuate the arrest. >> i believe in your testimony you said that the research bore out that five or 10 hour shifts and correct me if i'm wrong, five to 10 hour shifts are optimum. >> we received a report a very helpful report from oia discussing the san diego sector

and -- i'm sorry laredo in texas. in the rate of the managers and system may provide extensive discussion on the costs and benefits of doing a 10 hour shift versus an eight hour shift. i think that's a legitimate area for congress to consider. with the report confirms is the 10 hour shift is currently being compensated with aul and that's not lawful. we need to figure out if 10 hours is the best way. >> the reason it's not lawful is because it was set up for conditions that were -- correct? at the would have been set up and we were going to mag a predictable and use aul and whatever you want that would have been fine but the fact is unpredictability. >> that is why we wanted the flat bed because it's worth understanding from cb p. witnesses why 10 hours is the most cost-effective approach to securing the border. >> okay. mr. jeb when discussing pay

reform and we are discussing this bill we are talking about how much money it's going to save. why would your folks be in favor of that? >> because the alternative is worse. what we found is again mr. miles has testified that what we are doing is not actual auo. mr. hamrick has testified that the hours that are being worked whether improperly compensated. if it was properly compensated he would be paid more money than what auo pays. if i could keep amending the auo laws i would do that but unfortunately we have this budgetary constraint where nobody is willing to consider time and a half overtime system and therefore we are asking you for this. >> we are going to have several rounds. my time is up.

>> i was about halfway through my questioning and i want to yield to dr. coburn and come back to where i left off. the question then ask questions we talked about this a little bit but i want to talk about some more. of course i would start with you mr. miles and come up from for my rights and my left raid what concerns have been raised -- let's go back. what concerns were raised about the original policies? what concerns have been raised and how does this legislation address those concerns? use your mic. >> three separate concerns. one that a ou is unlawful because it's being used routinely and two a lot of whistleblowers were concerned that auo is being used in an office setting or administrative setting by managers in those

types of settings and three which we have discussed in some detail is that aop -- auo is from people that are doing various things. the legislation would clearly address the first issue on whether or not the hours that are being worked they can be scheduled in advance it would provide a legal framework for compensating the individuals who are working those hours. >> mr. hamrick the same question please. >> i would echo mr. miles. the legislation will allow cbp to properly compensate employees for their overtime work which they are entitled to while alleviating the issues that we are currently experiencing with the limitations of auo and what type of overtime hours can be worked under auo and how those can be paid.

>> okay. mr. vitiello -- mr. judd. >> simply this would make what we do legal and i don't know how better to say it creates. >> i agree there are specific mission requirements that in a system like what is contemplated in the legislation would allow for us to do and then and avoid some of the transactions that occur if you are on a fee-for-service issue. he would change what the expectations are of managers and individual agents and they would always be watching the clock versus what we cannot publish now which is to continue the work until the end of the shift. >> okay. i'm just going to lay out an example. senator coburn and myself and

senator tester of being senators let's say we are border patrol officers and we will say that dr. coburn is in california at the border there and the tucson sector and mr. tester is in south texas. there is not much going on on the northern california border and i am in a part of the border where we have maybe 20 people trekking across the border and trying to catch up and am working well beyond my shift. i may be working an extra four hours waiting for someone to come and relieve me. mr. tester is going the other way and to maybe across the border trying to apprehend somebody slipping across the border and he uses an extra two or three hours. most people who are familiar

with overtime issues know that people working in similar jobs have to work as long every day. common sense and my dad used to say just use common sense. i think someone using common sense here would say someone is working -- officer coburn here has worked an extra four hours to track down 20 people or i am and he is not or whatever. what do we pay those people along those lines? i think i know the answer but i'd like to hear you say it anyway. >> if you will i would like to take that question. if you are border portrait of agency you may not like where you live but you love your job. will we have seen since we have cut the number of hours we have seen that these criminal cartels are exploiting the holes we have created. just because you are in a patrol

function and you might not be arresting somebody doesn't mean that you're not performing in an essential job. what you are doing is to turning a so if you were out there patrolling the border just because you're not putting hands on somebody who is committing a crime you are letting them know that your presences there and you are ready to put hand on them if need be. when i say put hands on them i'm talking in a legal and lawful way. but we are ready and prepared to deal with the threat that will present itself. >> let me hear from others please. >> at a simple example in san diego before you are done with an assignment even if there isn't anything specifically specter are going on and we want someone to relieve you so there needs to be a compensation mechanism that allows for that relief. i can use the three shift model to expand the deployment versus some kind of four or five shift

model where there's an overlap for relief. auo is not and we have called on the administration for using it as relief. it's not specifically for that. in the tracking example in the radio or elsewhere that's pretty straightforward. that is what auo is designed for but in the construct when you had 85.5 hours and you get to 85.5 hour threshold we will pay you more for those extra hours. that is what flsa compositicompositi on allows for so it would be more expensive in than the same is true for our tv. it's not just a 25%. it gets you up to 25% you get beyond that 85.5 hours to get closer to time and have modeled versus what is contemplated in the legislation which is straight pay for the first 10 hours. >> mr. miles mr. hamrick would you take this please?

>> i think the only thing we would want to add to the conversation is the fourth and fifth example. the instructor at the training facility and the paralegal in san diego and i think mr. judd makes a good argument that you can't get a border patrol agent to go to glen cove georgia if it's not going to get a promised ninth and tenth hour but that's really a cost-benefit analysis that we don't feel comfortable making a just wanted to flag that issue. that put it out there as far as whether in all three of your examples plus the additional two administrative office training settings whether that's something that should be institutionalized. >> couldn't we say we want to have someone with experience in the field to introduce him or her to be an instructor? what is wrong with that? >> i think that would work in a general sense. the tools don't exist for us to do that.

>> therefore yield to dr. coburn just very briefly and the unintended consequences that would flow from the legislation that senator mccain and i have worked on police? >> we have looked at this every way imaginable. this is a four year process that we are seeing and i think that we have attacked this the best we possibly can. i just don't see any unintended consequences. >> others please? >> i would just say we have learned from the mistakes and the problems with auo. this legislation borrows from existing structures. the rest of federal law enforcement at the headquarters setting use the model which is 25% compensation for those formats so we look at that. it resonates a bit in this but this is a better scenario for

cbp and the border patrol because it contemplates not been available as in some of the other statutes. >> mr. hamrick and mr. miles and that i will yield. >> i have nothing to add sir. >> mr. miles? >> we have tried to flag the issues that all of you are considering as you debate and discuss this bill so i don't want to go on to those again. >> where i come up like to talk about and dr. coburn may have raised this issue but the issue of the capitalization cost and how it works now and how would change. >> chief vitiello but you support the agents getting 90% until an audit is done that says you need to go above that? >> think what is contemplated in the legislation is for us to have a baseline requirement in a relocation at least 90% of core workforce to be at the level 1 which is maximum capability. we think that's important for

stability and projection of cost. >> you mentioned the availability by the fbi and secret service and some of these law enforcement agencies but aren't they required to be available on a 24-hour basis to get that availability pay? >> they are required but the difference between that statue to my understanding is in what is contemplated as this compels a 10 hour day. >> okay. >> i wanted to put something in the record. in 2013 we had 2391 border patrol in 2005 with 11,264. 1189, 1,189,000 and 2005 -- and 2013. technology has helped us a great deal but we have double the border patrol.

and yet our arrests are down. part of that is because we don't have the ingress due to the economic condition that we went under. the other thing i want to enter into the record is the border patrol agency costs. this is a comparison of auo versus flsa and the bill is put forward. it does document some savings that will be there. i will come back again to you chief. until we can no just from a commonsense standpoint who really needs within your organization i agree that 90% numbers a good number john. i have a problem getting above that in some of these other areas where it would not seem fair to people who work in other areas of the federal government and that we have to compensate people who are not doing things that are required extra time that they get paid.

you're written answers to our committee said that you would support that and i was trying to get you to answer that question now. >> i think it's appropriate given your description of the growth of their last several years that the border patrol and the department take time to refine how we use the hours that are available. i prefer maximum cape ability in every location and i also we are building a system by which we can show you and others how many hours are spent at each location and not only that but discrete category support here they think that's important and we are happy to be a part of a demonstration to this body and others that says here are the 21,000 agents where they spend their time hour-by-hour. that's a refinement we are pursuing. we think is important given the growth we have had and the increasing capability. we totally agree that the environment is change but is still a dynamic lace in overtime

we would like to be in a position that says here is where all those hours were and i think would be easy for us to substantiate maximum capability. >> does that tie in with the study that you are doing now in terms of auo? you are trying to get it better management handled by metrics and locations and by area. does that tie in with what the secretary has asked this terminus -- as far as in auo determination in the study you are doing now? >> they are independent in the sense that one is starting in mind to reform the situation we are in hand to the extent that we can improve the auo condition we will do that. the determination process will support our effort to refine and demonstrate to you the capabilities being used and how they are being used but it will also inform the secretary's work in the task he has given us to reform this issue going forward. we'll be it was to quantify and justify the hours as they are being used. >> all right.

i just have a couple of other pieces of paper i would like to put in the record and i have no other questions. >> senator tester. >> thank you mr. chairman. a couple of questions for mr. miles real quick. we have two special counsel reports that outline the use and your office has republished to reports one in october of this last year. do you think dhs has provided adequate regressed during the five years the agency is known about the problem? >> i think our october letter outlined a lot of concerns. the pace of the dhs was making reforms and for example in 2007 in 2008 they committed to issue

new departmentwide directive to address the auo issue and in the 2013 communication act we noted the directive was still lacking however in the last since you held your hearing on auo they have taken and lot of redacted steps and a lot of visit making a difference. >> i want to talk a little bit about a suggestion that senator coburn brought up in his opening remarks. you guys can add to it. we talked about changing the base pay and not doing what we are doing in this bill that just changing the base pay. my take on that is that we do need to address the extra hours on the border that would not address and we do need to address the overtime issue. that was not address. and we need to provide stability in the schedule because the

previous two was not addressed. would either judd or vitiello want to add to that at all? >> in essence we are in fact changing the base pay. the overtime hours although it's beyond eight hours is still being paid straight time so it has since you are just changing the base pay. what you are doing is you are guaranteeing, you are putting a guarantee in there that this is what we are going to make which is what we don't currently have. so you are changing the base pay. this will become part of the base package. >> mr. vitiello? >> the current system supports a regular work and what's contemplated in the legislation better supports a regular work but it also gives us management controls that i don't have now. it gives us greater accountability with regard to where people are in relation to their base pay and then the extra hours that they are putting in each day.

>> mr. hamrick do you believe and i don't want to put words in your mouth but do you think part of the problem with aou is just bad management? >> no senator tester. i believe that the biggest issue is the challenge in identifying what overtime hours are legally compensated through auo and what overtime hours are not. i once was in auo earner myself many years ago before the leap law came into effect and in nearly 28 years in federal law enforcement i have learned more about leap or auo in the past 12 months than i ever knew as in

auo. it's a complicated base system that is difficult to navigate. >> would you agree this simplified beppe system? >> yes sir. >> want to talk about retrenchment of equipment for just a second. i should have brought a picture of my farm. i live 75 or 80 miles south of the northern border. what impact do you think -- you already said that this would help with bertrand -- retention and recruitment mr. mr. judd and senator coburn has already said he doesn't want to reduce pay and i believe both of you. the question becomes i'm very concerned about retention and recruitment and mr. judd give me

your take on how this will be accepted versus completely redoing the system and not giving the kind of addicted billy that i think this bill does. >> senator is very simple. back in 1997 when i pursued a career with a the border patrol i was in the process of two local law enforcement agencies. these local law enforcement agencies were in very desirable locations in which to live. the only reason that i took the border patrol job was because with the auo it was more money. i moved to a frankly a less desirable location to live but i did that because i was making more money and over the long-term and with retirement it would have been better for me.

if you get rid of this 25% you will not be able to recruit quality individuals into this job. >> i appreciate that. i would just like to make one real quick statement that deals with making the floor the cap that senator coburn had talked about. and i would just say we really depend on customs and border patrol and the folks in the field to determine what their needs are the same way we depend upon the military to tell us what their needs are and we act. we are hearing from the agency and we are hearing from the folks that are working on the ground that 90% is a reasonable floor. and i think it would need -- i think would be dangerous to use it as the cap because these are

the guys that are out there and they know the impacts that are happening everyday. they know they intrusion's on the border that quite frankly i don't care about and most of the folks that live close to -- closer to the border than i do don't hear about. i don't speak for senator mccain and it's too bad he isn't here. if they are wanting an audit to be done and that audit showed that 90% floor was to hide or not high enough that might be a way to go but i think to put it as a ceiling, put it as a ceiling would be dangerous. i yield yield. >> i just have a couple of other questions for mr. hamrick. osc has referred -- that's my understanding. is that right? >> my office has said six

investigainvestiga tions that were referred to us by the osc. >> there were 10 total referrals, right? >> that's the number. where are the other four cases and who is investigating those? >> because there was an allegation of auo misuse against the office of internal affairs we are no longer -- our agents are no longer conducting those investigations and they are referred to the ig inspector general. >> thank you. >> i want to go back in time a couple of years to 2012. i know the problem with the administration is not a new one. fiscal 2012 budget request included a legislative proposal that attempted to address this

problem by putting border patrol into a system as you know known as the law enforcement availability pay or leap. as i understand it proposals generally applies to criminal investigations such as the f. the eyes such as the drug enforcement agency were secret service agent. he gives him a 25% increase in their base salary based on the expectation that they will be available to work as needed. that was a proposal in the 2012 congress failed to act. let me ask if i could mr. vitiello in mr. judd could you explain to us what happened in 2012 with this legislative proposal and if you would please explain why the tester mccain bill is an improvement of the 2012 legislative proposal to put border patrol on leap and the

fbi's secret service? mr. vitiello. >> the agency advocated for conversion of leap in the sense that it did offer the same kind of savings contemplated here. but there were several voices of stakeholders that were not enamored with the way leap is used and for our work. >> who might those stakeholders be? >> the national border patrol counsel among others. seated to my left. >> what were their reservations? >> well like what is contemplated here there would not be renumeration going forward and they were concerned and i will let brian speak for himself but the concerns we heard was there wasn't a threshold to bandage against or two and they were concerned that people like me would use that. what is contemplated in the

management right to assign folks to keep them below or at the threshold. what is here is much improved from that experience. this borrows a lot from leap in the sense that it solidifies the macrobudget picture that allows us to forecast going forward without using flsa is a predictable cost in the future. >> mr. judd do you agree with this message? >> i absolutely agree that it was the national border patrol counsel that was adamantly opposed to leap. the simple reason we are opposed to leap is this whole nation that all you have to do is be available to be paid someone needs to go back and read the law and i think you need to investigate other agencies. the law states you must maintain certain number of hours that you have to be scheduled. the problem with leap is you can schedule me for 10 hours but if

i work over 10 hours that day it's free. there is no mechanism to force them to let me go after ten-hour so in other words in a real-world sense if i'm in a certain area on the border and a relief that is going to relieve me for today calls in sick the agency can call me up and say hey your relief just called in sick. we didn't schedule this to happen. we need you to work a double shift and by the way the double shift is now going to be free. we needed a mechanism to ensure that the agency was not going to work us beyond 10 hours per day and work us for free and that is what this legislation does. this gives us what we call back and protections to ensure that we get compensated for the work that we did. >> okay thanks. i have another question. if i can get a couple more and use my time and i will yield back to you senator tester if

you would like to take more time. a question on operational tempo if i could and i think i will address these couple of questions in this regard to you mr. vitiello. i understand one of the most widespread misuses of administratively uncontrollable overtime of the border patrol has been to pay for the extra time it takes employees to transition from one ship to another and this has allowed the border patrol to use three ships that many locations rather than for, eight hour shifts. in fact the office of special counsel in his written testimony and this is a quote "that i think, managers insist employing three ships as a more cost-effective approach to securing the border even if administratively uncontrollable overtime may not properly be used for routine activities and that's a quote.

a couple of questions if i could. mr. vitiello that would ask you to explain why the border troll uses three ships and set of four is a more cost-effective approach to securing the border? >> i agree with the managers in san diego who pointed this out in the interviews. in an ideal setting 24 by seven, seven day a week work load along the border you would have to transition between shifts however it's better to have three with the overhead the managers and supervisors versus four or five to predict and schedule that overlap. it's better to have a three shift model and when you have a three shift model the shifts have to transfer information to each other before one starts and people have to be relieved. under the current system a you owe the rubric doesn't allow for relief to be paid for using a you owe so whatever system going

forward will have three ships and set of four. you have the better capability that way but you still need to figure out how to transfer that knowledge and that means time. >> you address this in part but i'm going to ask it anyway. what will the impact on your operations and her ability to secure the border be if you were forced to move to three ships across the border as a result of not being able to use controllable overtime for ship changes. >> you which is get more agency the same amount of work. it's advantageous to the organization as it relates to protecting costs and future stability that you have have three ships instead of four. it's more cost-effective. you have to hire more agents to get the same level of employment across a 24-hour. map. >> finally mr. vitiello how will the tester mccain bill we are considering today that her ability to apply additional

agents to the border each day? >> what is contemplated here is that would allow for using this model to compensate people -- people for that really. there are lots of missions that occur after the shift is over. developing trends to inform the next days and shift deployment. we want agents to record and transfer that at the end of the ships of the next shift is more capable so as they deploy the next day they are smarter about where they place their assets and how supervisors move people from one side of one area to another. so you need to have that transfer knowledge he and that overlap not for only the physical presence but for the information and rapid response is required based on the information that they develop well in their shift. >> thanks so much. senator tester. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank each one of the witnesses today for your testimony and your straightforward answers. i would just like to say it is

seldom in the u.s. senate that we get a bill that makes a situation simpler, that the agencies want, that people that are employed by the agencies want that saves money that increases efficiency that increases predictability and we don't throw it out of here as quick as we can. we have a problem. i think all for the witnesses have pointed out what the problem is and i think that if the senate does what it does so very well and that is taka to death than delay it to death we won't get this problem solved. the ultimate thing that will happen if we don't get this problem solved is our borders will be less secure. we will be looking around pointing our fingers at you guys

saying why didn't you do this are why didn't you do that when in fact it's our obligation to make sure you have the tools to do your job to protect the border in a way that you know how it needs to be protected. with that mr. chairman i would say that we are in the first or second week in june. if we don't get this bill out of committee and if things go upside down on our border we can reconvene this committee of homeland security and talk about how we have screwed up. with that mr. chairman i will ask you when welfare via markup on this bill? >> m. going to confer with dr. coburn and later this week. >> later this week we ought to have a markup on this bill. >> i will confer with dr. coburn

and maybe you can be part of that conversation. >> let me make it very very clear, this is not something we should screw around with. we have got people out here that are probably watching us on c-span right now wanting to know what we are going to do. we have got folks who work for cbp that like their job and are proud of their job and if we don't set certainty down for these folks they are going to go to work somewhere else. we need to fix fix it so it cane audited so we know what we are doing in these folks have predictability. now we can put off until the end of the month to keep in mind the longer we put this off we have to get it off the senate floor. we have to see if the house can get it done and then we get it implemented. we have 11 weeks left. >> senator tester i think you know if this bill saves as much money as we are told they might be available to serve as an

offset. believe me i understand the need >> mr. chairman i will tell you that this bill doesn't save one thin dime if its revenue-neutral we have to do it. >> i hope it saves more than a few thin dimes. and i thank you very much for all the work that you and the staff have done. i wish you could could've been here. we will put our heads together and talk this week and if we can do it early this week we will do it early this week. >> i think tomorrow afternoon is good. >> i'm getting your address. [laughter] all right this might be my last question. it deals with the surge that we have seen in an authorized migration from central america

particularly the record numbers of unaccompanied minors that have come and the effect they're having on on the border patrol's ability to carry on parts of its mission. specific we noted that the surge we are seeing and i think this is a quote compromising dhs capabilities for other border activity. who is this question for? mr. vitiello. i'm going to ask you to please expand on this for us if you will. what exactly has the impact of this current surge in an authorized migration been on the border patrol to carry out its mission? we will start out with that and then i'll ask a second question. >> is a relates to the

conditions in the rio grande valley we are facing a situation where the facilities that are available for the eight stations that are in the valley are insufficiently large enough to accommodate the number of people who we find ourselves arresting. so given the timeframe that we need to book people and and to treat juveniles via the statute to turn them over to hhs before the 72 hour clock runs out we were insufficiently prepared to do that given the space that's available there. that is why the secretary immediately designated it as a floor event and myself a coordinator for the dhs responds in the liaison with the interagency and the president since has designated as a humanitarian event input administrator fugate into the federal ministry deferral to drive more resources. as we started to the valley to

do it fema calls wrap around services for facilities in the valley and then to make the system work more efficiency to have more placement for these children and what it means to the operations down there is that we were using enforcement resources in order to do this care and to make these facilities as safe and useful as possible and to provide the right setting for the people who are in custody. that help us down rates considerably and has changed considerably since may and early june and since the present designation as the administrative fugate coordination has gotten better. we are concerned that the text you speak of is the draft that my staff prepared for me. we have not sent to the interagency coordinating group but it was a concern that has been existing in the valley for a while and we have moved forward to improve those conditions since the time of

that writing. >> i'm going to follow up with this. i understand that due to budgetary constraints in the past couple of years the border patrol has had to reduce the amount of hours worked by its agents to reduce overtime costs. what impact has this had on border patrol's capacity to deal with the surge in migration as well as other threats in the border region and i think you have addressed this is at least in part. i want to take another shot at it and ask mr. vitiello a few which are his thoughts. >> we looked at 13 and 14 budget picture before sequestration recognize there was savings. they some are merging awareness and understanding of the challenge we had with the auo rubric and we decided we could take some risk in reducing hours and ordered to drive savings from those accounts. we decided in 13 to do that as

an experiment to see how well they could monitor what is by statute uncontrollable. i i think we did a fair job of that. the sequester plans made that ultimately more difficult. in 14 we have tried for more savings but what that means a shrinking hours of aging deployment so you go from if the three shift model to a four shift model or more and then you are pulling hours out of the workforce in order not to make fosc payment so you are reducing capability. we think the risks we are taking are adequate and substantial but manageable and in the situation is a relates to we recognize that can be the way forward. the work set that is down there in and other places we can't continue to do that. we have reduce those costs to meet the targets and 13 attempted do the same in 14 but there are certain locations where that's not --.

>> any thoughts on this? >> absolutely. for those that are watching on c-span2 keep this in layman's terms what we are seeing with the surge coming over in rgb is polling agents out of the field. they are no longer patrolling the border. they're having to deal with this huge influx of miners that are coming in and they are having to process them. they're having to watch them. they're having to feed them and do all these different things instead of being out in patrolling the border. not only is that happening in rgb but because they don't have the facilities to manage the influx of crossings they are now sending them to places like el paso the tucson sector and what that is doing is pulling resources out of the border patrol agents out of a field that would normally be patrolling the border and they are now having to do the same things. they're having to process these illegal aliens and there have been to watch them and feed them and take care of all of their needs while they are in our

custody and what it is doing is it's draining to the breaking point the number of agents were able to deploy into the field. it's hurting us. >> all right, thanks. how will the tester mccain bill address these issues? >> specifically the hours passed that the flsa renumeration is not part of the compensation package going forward so straight time for the assigned 10 hours through the shift would give us more capability. it's in essence giving us nearly 1500 agents more capability along the borders with current staffing levels so it allows us to flex in that overlap. it allows us to have a core capability across the four so we don't have to shrink hours in order to reduce payments in the budget picture. >> in essence you will be paying me the same amount of money to work 10 hours is what you are currently paying me to work 9.3 hours and that is where the

additional 1000, 1200 agents comes in. because you are paying the flsa right now i'm only able to work 9.3 hours because we have this overtime budget and we can't exceed this overtime budget. the senator mccain and senator tester bill will allow me to work 10 hours for the exact same amount of pay as i would work at 9.3 or 9.25 hours. >> the last question i have is a relates to something dr. coburn said to me early in the hearing and it dealt with the calculation of pension benefits for those that work under this prearrangement and he suggested it was saved or he thought it would save money in the near term. in the long term it may cost money because of additional pension. can someone speak to that and impact all of you are welcome to address that if you would like.

esther miles do you have anything you would like to say on that front? >> no sir. >> mr. hamrick? >> no sir. see why not? >> i have nothing to add sir. >> that's absolutely incorrect. our pension right now is based upon 20% auo plus our base pay. this would keep everything exactly the same. this wouldn't change anything. it wouldn't cost more and it wouldn't cost less. the pension would be the same. >> it is in the change as it relates to the auo payments or other statutes that are out there likely. >> that think we are going to wrap it up here. we are about start some votes in the senate and i think with that i want to thank each of you for coming today and thanks for making time to be with us on short notice and one of you very short notice. we appreciate your testimony. we appreciate you answering our questions.

the hearing record will remain open first 15 days until june 24 at 5:00 p.m. for statements and questions for the record. i would urge my colleagues if you have any additional questions to submit them well before june 24 so that we can get prompt answers to those questions. with that having been said it's been a good hearing and appreciative of the time that has been invested by her witnesses by staff and by the members. this hearing is adjourned. thanks so much.

>> the religion is a powerful

identity forming mechanism. part of human society is figuring out who is us and who is them. who is my group and who is the outgroup? religion answers that question pretty easily. if you pray like me, if you eat like me, if you go to the same church as i do then you are us and if you don't then you are them. e.u. can see easily how that kind of us them in group a group mind-set could very easily lead to extremism to marginalization. after all as i remind people religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation but just as powerful as violence. how do you know who is us and who is them? if you are fighting alongside me you are us. if you're fighting against me you are them. so far from religion and violence being these two things that are odds and should have nothing to do with each other they have as everyone knows throughout history are much more

aligned and than we would like them to be. >> recently russia signed a 400 billion-dollar deal to pipe natural gas across the border to china. next the center for strategic and international studies hosts a discussion on china russia relations in the two nations increasing tensions with the u.s..

this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. good afternoon everyone. my name is chris johnson given the friedman chair in china studies. it's great to see so many friends to join us for what i think is going to be an absolutely fantastic panel. i couldn't be more proud of a panel we manage to pull together. on the issue a tremendous concern us to thinking about what's going on with the sino-russian relationship and how it matters first sino- russian u.s. triangular relations. you all have the bios so i'm just going to go ahead and dispense with that. this is another installment in our china reality check series where we try to look at issues that are controversial by their nature or are poorly understood and watch in 10 are we just feel deserve more attention across-the-board. this topic certainly struck me

as i was in shanghai watching as something i need to do as soon as i got back so i'm pleased these great gentlemen work were needing their schedules. it was not easy that we managed to get them here. we will have dr. brzezinski start off and ambassador roy will follow and mr. redd. we will have questions and answers amongst yourselves and turn it over for a broader discussiodiscussio n. >> thank you very much. i take it we are supposed to talk about the agreement between russia and china and its implications. let me make three basic points about it. in my judgment at least it is still in the realm of speculation and perhaps my two colleagues know much more about it because they know more about china than i do but on the whole so far the issues that arise out of that our agreement are subject to some degree of uncertainty. my sense of that agreement

however on the whole is that it does not really create a situation in which the russians are gaining a great deal. they are gaining something that is essential to them and it's important for them and they a can can should be it to some of the influence and success but they don't in my view at least retain as much freedom of action subsequent time as the chinese. after all it's a long-term agreement. it's a long-term agreement which involves commitments by both sides of substantial character but much larger character on the russian part than on the chinese. moreover the russians or make being a commitment to china of the sort that they will have a long-term interest in maintaining a maximum of enlarging. their relationship on that same issue with the european union has already stalemated.

so they have a fast interest in us being successful and sustained. the chinese of course do also. it's good to have russian support. it does provide them with a degree of guarantee for the future and that's very important but consider this. in some years to come there could be issues pertaining to for example new opportunities from iran. there could be new opportunities to produce a great deal of energy for saudi arabia especially as the structure of the world distribution comes out from saudi arabia. the chinese already have a far ranging long-term agreement with turkmenistan which can grow in size and they certainly want to preserve it.